Delhi Police has opposed fresh bail pleas filed by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, contending that the applications are legally untenable and seek to mislead the court.
In separate but similar affidavits, the prosecution described Khalid and Imam as alleged “masterminds” of the riots and argued that the latest proceedings run contrary to binding directions issued by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
The latest applications mark the third round of bail proceedings initiated by Khalid and Imam before the High Court. Their previous attempts at securing bail were unsuccessful, including before the Supreme Court.
Police cite SC ruling
In January 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five co-accused in the case but denied relief to Khalid and Imam. Delhi Police told the High Court that the apex court had upheld the applicability of the restrictions on bail contained in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in their cases.
According to the prosecution, the Supreme Court had allowed the two accused to seek bail afresh only after protected witnesses had been examined or one year had passed from the January judgment, whichever occurred earlier.
Police argued that neither condition has yet been fulfilled and, therefore, the present applications are premature.
Khalid and Imam subsequently approached the trial court with fresh bail applications, which were rejected on July 4. They then moved the Delhi High Court challenging that decision.
Reliance on another judgment disputed
A key argument advanced by Khalid and Imam is based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case. In that matter, another Bench of the apex court raised questions concerning the reasoning adopted while denying bail to Khalid and Imam in January.
Their counsel has relied on the subsequent judgment as a change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of their bail claims.
Delhi Police has rejected that contention, arguing that the Andrabi judgment concerned an unrelated case and did not disturb the specific findings made by the Supreme Court regarding Khalid and Imam.
The prosecution maintained that observations by a coordinate Bench in another case could not override the directions issued specifically in proceedings involving the two accused.
Tasleem Ahmed case also cited
Khalid and Imam have also relied upon developments in the case of co-accused Tasleem Ahmed. The Supreme Court had referred differing judicial views emerging from the Andrabi and earlier Delhi riots bail rulings to a larger Bench and granted Ahmed interim bail.
Delhi Police, however, argued that the larger Bench reference does not nullify or alter the January ruling concerning Khalid and Imam. According to the prosecution, the statutory restrictions governing their bail applications consequently remain applicable.
Khalid and Imam face charges under the UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The allegations against them remain subject to trial.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan is scheduled to hear the bail pleas together on Thursday.