Delhi HC issues notice on Umar Khalid’s bail plea in 2020 riots conspiracy case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Delhi Police on jailed former JNU student Umar Khalid’s regular bail plea in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case and sought its response.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan also issued notice on Khalid’s plea seeking interim bail and posted it, along with the regular bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam, for further hearing on August 27.

Khalid has challenged the Karkardooma Court’s order refusing him regular bail in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.

During the hearing, senior advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, submitted that apart from challenging the trial court’s order refusing him regular bail, Khalid had also sought interim bail on the ground that the Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question relating to the grant of bail in UAPA cases where there is prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

Pais argued that pending a decision by the larger Bench, Khalid should be released on interim bail.

Earlier this month, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court dismissed the regular bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, holding that the trial court was bound by the Supreme Court’s January 5 order declining them bail and that their fresh applications were not maintainable.

The trial court had said that the apex court had made it clear that the two accused would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail only after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or on the expiry of one year from its January 5 order, whichever was earlier.

“The Court has no option but to follow the judgment dated January 5, 2026, as passed by the Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed,” the trial court had said.

It further held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s directions, it could not entertain the fresh bail applications and grant relief to the applicants.

During the proceedings before the trial court, the defence had argued that there had been a change in circumstances after the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment refusing bail. It relied on the apex court’s subsequent order granting six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi after referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The prosecution opposed the pleas, contending that there had been no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the issue and that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail petitions of both applicants.

The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.

Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, while granting bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the apex court granted six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

–IANS