The Delhi Police has firmly opposed the new bail applications submitted by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi High Court. These applications are connected to the larger conspiracy case surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots. In separate affidavits, the prosecution and police have asserted that Khalid and Imam are perceived as the “masterminds” behind the riots, and their recent bail requests are described as “illegal” and misleading to the Court.
Prosecution’s Stand Against Bail Pleas
According to the police, “The current bail requests are misconceived and illegal based on several grounds. Firstly, the appellant is identified as one of the ‘masterminds’ of the Delhi riots. Secondly, the bail requests contradict binding directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): 2026 SCC Online SC 10.” The police further highlighted that Khalid and Imam’s attempt to portray a Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA: 2026 SCC Online SC 881 as a change in circumstances is misleading.
Previous Bail Attempts and Supreme Court’s Position
This marks the third instance where Khalid and Imam have filed bail petitions with the High Court. Their prior attempts were dismissed, including a rejection by the Supreme Court in January 2026, when bail was granted to five individuals but denied to Khalid and Imam. They have now approached the High Court after their pleas were refused by the trial court on July 4.
The Delhi Police emphasized that the Supreme Court, in its January 2026 judgment, described Khalid and Imam as “masterminds” of the riots, justifying their ongoing detention. The police argue that Khalid and Imam misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s directions, which allowed a fresh bail application only after the examination of protected witnesses was completed or a year had passed since the order. This condition has not yet been fulfilled, according to the police.
Legal Implications and Arguments
The police’s affidavits also point out that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gulfisha (Supra) upheld the applicability of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, maintaining the bar against granting bail to the appellants. The affidavits argue that the judgment in a different case, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, does not pertain to the Delhi Riots case or the roles of Khalid and Imam, and thus cannot override the specific findings from their own case.
More Read
Police have also challenged the reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in co-accused Tasleem Ahmed’s case, where a divergence of opinion between Syed Iftikhar Andrabi and Gulfisha Fatima was referred to a larger bench, granting interim bail to Ahmed. The police maintain that this reference cannot alter the legal conclusions reached in Khalid and Imam’s case in January 2026 when their bail was denied.
