Delhi HC denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & 7 others in Delhi Riots case

Delhi HC denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & 7 others in Delhi Riots case. Delhi High Court dismissed their bail pleas in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur delivered the verdict, upholding the trial court’s earlier rejections. The accused, including Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed, face charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly orchestrating the communal violence that rocked Northeast Delhi, leaving 53 dead and over 700 injured.

The decision has sparked renewed debate about justice, free speech, and the use of anti-terror laws, with the accused’s legal teams vowing to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.The 2020 Delhi riots, erupting amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), were marked by brutal clashes between Hindu and Muslim communities. The Delhi Police’s Special Cell filed FIR 59/2020, accusing the activists of being the "masterminds" behind a premeditated conspiracy to incite violence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the prosecution, argued that the riots were a “well-orchestrated” plot to defame India globally, timed to coincide with then-US President Donald Trump’s visit in February 2020.

Mehta emphasized that the accused’s actions, including inflammatory speeches and coordinated efforts via WhatsApp groups, warranted their continued detention until acquitted or convicted, citing national security concerns.Umar Khalid’s counsel, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, countered that merely being part of WhatsApp groups without sending messages does not constitute criminality. Pais also highlighted the lack of concrete evidence, such as recovered funds or weapons, linking Khalid to the alleged conspiracy. He argued that a supposed “secret meeting” on February 23-24, 2020, was a public event, not a clandestine plot as claimed by the prosecution. Khalid, arrested in September 2020, has been in custody for over five years, with a brief seven-day interim bail granted in December 2024 to attend a family wedding.

The prolonged detention without a framed trial has been a key point in the defense’s plea for bail.Similarly, Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer, Advocate Talib Mustafa, argued that Imam was “completely disconnected” from the co-accused and the alleged conspiracy. Imam’s role, according to the prosecution, ended with a speech in Bihar on January 23, 2020, well before the riots erupted. Mustafa contended that Imam’s speeches and WhatsApp chats contained no calls for violence, challenging the prosecution’s narrative. Imam, arrested in August 2020, has also faced prolonged incarceration, though he was granted statutory bail in a separate sedition case related to the riots. The defense’s arguments centered on the slow pace of the trial and parity with co-accused like Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in June 2021.

Khalid Saifi’s counsel, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, questioned the applicability of UAPA based on “innocuous messages” and the prosecution’s attempt to weave a narrative out of them. John argued that Saifi deserved bail on grounds of parity with others released earlier and emphasized the lack of direct evidence tying him to violent acts. The prosecution, however, relied on statements from protected witnesses and alleged evidence of coordinated efforts, including plans to disrupt CCTV systems and use catapults for stone-pelting. Solicitor General Mehta described the riots as a “clinical and pathological conspiracy” aimed at dividing the nation along religious lines, a claim the defense dismissed as exaggerated.

The Delhi High Court’s decision, which also rejected the bail plea of co-accused Tasleem Ahmed on the same day, has drawn criticism from activists and political figures like TMC MP Mahua Moitra, who decried the prolonged detention without trial as a miscarriage of justice. With the trial yet to formally frame charges, the accused face an uncertain future, having spent over five years in custody. The case underscores the tension between national security laws and individual liberties, with the Supreme Court now likely to be the next battleground for the activists’ fight for freedom.