The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail petitions of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 northeast Delhi communal violence case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The order marks another setback for both undertrials, who moved the High Court after a trial court dismissed their bail applications for a third time on July 4. Both have remained in custody since their arrests in late 2020, with Imam taken into custody on August 25 and Khalid on September 13.
Defence Cites Stalled Charges And Pending Supreme Court Plea
Arguing on behalf of Khalid, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais urged the court to grant relief based on minor shifts in factual circumstances alongside guidance established in Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Pais emphasised that formal charges in the conspiracy trial are yet to be framed, meaning the examination of prosecution witnesses has not yet started. The High Court also recorded that charges remain unframed.
The defence additionally submitted that a Special Leave Petition connected to the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court. The trial court had previously indicated it would await the outcome of the apex court proceedings before moving ahead.
Police Oppose Relief Citing Command Role And Risk Profile
The Delhi Police strongly contested the bail pleas, describing both Khalid and Imam as key orchestrators of the 2020 violence, according to a report by the Press Trust of India.
Opposing the plea for equal treatment alongside other co-accused who had earlier secured bail, the prosecution maintained that the two could not claim parity. The police cited prior observations by the Supreme Court identifying both individuals as members of the operation’s command authority, arguing that their specific risk profiles warranted sustained detention.
State counsel also argued that the fresh applications ran contrary to directions issued by the Supreme Court on January 5. Under that ruling, the two were permitted to seek release only after depositions from protected witnesses had concluded, or after the passage of one year, whichever occurred earlier. That restriction formed the basis of the trial court’s July 4 dismissal, where the judge noted there was no choice but to adhere to the apex court’s directive.
Judicial Background And Previous Relief For Co-Accused
The current ruling follows an earlier decision on September 2, 2025, when a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed bail pleas moved by Khalid and Imam.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld that denial on January 5. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had concluded that a prima facie case stood against both Khalid and Imam under anti-terror provisions.
However, in that same January 5 verdict, the Supreme Court granted relief to five other co-accused in the case: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
In a subsequent decision on May 22, the Supreme Court granted six months of interim bail to co-accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad. At the same time, the court referred the broader legal question concerning extended undertrial detention under stringent UAPA bail requirements to a larger bench.
