New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail pleas of jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, holding that in view of the Supreme Court’s earlier order, they could not be granted bail at this stage.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt rejected the pleas challenging the Karkardooma Court’s orders refusing them regular bail in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.
The High Court said that the Supreme Court’s previous order declining bail to Khalid and Imam had to be kept in view and that the circumstances permitting them to renew their bail pleas had not arisen.
Khalid and Imam had approached the High Court after the Karkardooma Court dismissed their fresh bail applications, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January 5, order declining them bail.
The trial court had said the Supreme Court had permitted Khalid and Imam to renew their prayer for bail after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or on the expiry of one year from the date of its January 5 order, whichever was earlier.
“The Court has no option but to follow the judgment dated January 5, 2026, as passed by the Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed,” the trial court had said.
Khalid and Imam had argued before the trial court that there had been a change in circumstances after the Supreme Court’s January order refusing them bail. They had relied, among other things, on the subsequent Supreme Court reference to a larger Bench on the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial could justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The prosecution had opposed the pleas, contending that there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the issue and that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail pleas of both accused.
In separate replies, the police had described Khalid and Imam as alleged “masterminds” of the larger conspiracy and submitted that the Supreme Court had placed them in a qualitatively different category from certain other co-accused.
The prosecution had relied on the Supreme Court’s assessment of their alleged roles and contended that the apex court had already prescribed the circumstances in which they could renew their bail pleas, and that neither of those circumstances had arisen when the fresh applications were filed.
The Delhi Police had also opposed reliance on the Supreme Court’s subsequent reference to a larger Bench on the issue of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, arguing that merely referring a legal question to a larger Bench did not unsettle the law declared in the earlier judgment concerning Khalid and Imam.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had declined to grant bail to Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
At the same time, the apex court had granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial could justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions and have remained in custody for several years.