Delhi HC Issues Notice On Umar Khalid's Bail Plea In 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case

Published 31 July 2026 · local

Delhi HC Issues Notice On Umar Khalid's Bail Plea In 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case Published By, Last Updated: July 31, 2026, 12:53 IST The bench

Delhi HC Issues Notice On Umar Khalid's Bail Plea In 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case Published By, Last Updated: July 31, 2026, 12:53 IST The bench directed Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and advocate Dhruv Pande, appearing for the Delhi Police, to file their replies. Rapid Read Khalid sought interim bail, citing a May 22 Supreme Court order that referred to a larger bench the issue of granting bail in UAPA cases involving prolonged incarceration and delayed trials. (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Friday sought responses from the Delhi Police and the Centre on a plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid challenging the rejection of his bail request in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice on Khalid’s petition against a trial court order dated May 4 refusing him bail. The bench directed Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and advocate Dhruv Pande, appearing for the Delhi Police, to file their replies.

Khalid has sought interim bail, relying on a May 22 Supreme Court order that referred to the Chief Justice of India a larger question regarding the application of the apex court’s 2021 judgment in Union of India vs KA Najeeb in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) involving prolonged incarceration and delays in trial. The same order had granted interim bail to two co-accused in the Delhi riots case. “Considering the nature of the matter, issue notice on the appeal and the application for interim bail. List on August 27," the High Court said while scheduling the next hearing. The court will also take up co-accused Sharjeel Imam’s challenge to the same trial court order on that date. Earlier, on July 4, a trial court had refused bail to both Khalid and Imam, observing that it could not examine whether there had been any change in circumstances after the Supreme Court dismissed their bail pleas in January.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts noted that the apparent conflict between the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima matter and a later ruling in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case had already been referred to a larger bench. Until that issue is resolved, the trial court said, it could not entertain fresh bail applications on those grounds. The Supreme Court had meanwhile expressed “serious reservations" over the reasoning adopted in the January 5 judgment, observing that the decision may not have properly applied the principles laid down in Union of India vs KA Najeeb (2021). The landmark ruling held that prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can outweigh the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. In his appeal, Khalid argued that the trial court wrongly concluded that no fresh grounds existed for considering a new bail plea. He submitted that the trial had not progressed and charges were yet to be framed, making the court’s finding unsustainable.