Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid approach SC again for bail in Delhi riots case

Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's denial of bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. They cited the prosecution's failure to examine protected witnesses despite nearly seven years of imprisonment and the approaching expiry of a one-year restriction on fresh bail pleas.Sharjeel Imam and Umar KhalidNewdelhi,Nov 5, 2026 20:45 ISTActivists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have moved the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court order denying them bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, news agency Press Trust of India reported.They have argued that they should be granted bail because the prosecution has not examined the protected witnesses and the one-year restriction imposed by the Supreme Court is nearing expiry.Imam said in his petition that the chargesheet was filed on September 25, 2020. Eighteen accused are facing trial in the case, while the prosecution has cited more than 900 witnesses, including 47 protected witnesses.He also submitted that despite spending six years and nine months as an undertrial, the prosecution had not examined a single witness. Khalid similarly argued that the prosecution had failed to examine the protected witnesses and that the one-year restriction imposed by the Supreme Court was about to expire. He said prolonged imprisonment would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.The Delhi High Court on September 30 refused to grant bail to Khalid and Imam. It said it was bound by “judicial discipline” and could not modify the Supreme Court's January 5 order, which allowed the two accused to seek bail after the protected witnesses were examined or after one year, whichever was earlier. Khalid and Imam had challenged a trial court's July 4 decision rejecting their bail applications for the third time since their arrest. The trial court said it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court's January 5 order and could neither consider the pleas nor grant relief.The high court noted that while denying bail to the two accused in January, the Supreme Court had said their roles were different from those of the other co-accused and described them as the “ideological drivers” of the alleged conspiracy.Khalid and Imam have been booked under the UAPA over allegations that they were among the masterminds of the February 2020 riots, in which 53 people were killed and more than 700 were injured. The violence broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the National Register of Citizens.Activist Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, among others, were also booked over their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy case, which is being investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell. Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, and Khalid on September 13, 2020.On September 2, 2025, a Delhi High Court division bench denied bail to Khalid and Imam. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on January 5 but granted relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, according to PTI.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had said there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA. Rejecting their argument over the delay in the trial, the court said they could file fresh bail applications after the examination of the protected witnesses or after one year from the date of its order.On May 22, the Supreme Court granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad. It also referred to a larger bench the issue of prolonged imprisonment of undertrials under the UAPA because of the law's strict bail conditions.Khalid and Imam, who have been in prison since 2020, have now approached the Supreme Court again, citing the prosecution's failure to examine protected witnesses and the approaching end of the one-year period set by the court.- Ends