Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid
New Delhi: A court here on Saturday, July 4, rejected the bail applications of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger-conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, saying it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court’s January 5 order and, therefore, could neither entertain the pleas nor grant them the relief.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai said the bail pleas are not even maintainable in the trial court.
The judge said, “This 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. Following the said order of the Supreme Court, this court cannot entertain the applications and grant bail to the applicants. In fact, the applications are not maintainable and they are hereby dismissed.”
The court said although the applicants had argued that there was a change in circumstances following a division bench judgment of the top court in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the issue concerning the divergence of opinion between that verdict and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima versus State has already been referred to a larger bench.
“Unless the issue is settled, the court cannot consider the present applications on any ground,” the judge said.
The court further said it cannot even examine whether there is any change in circumstances, as it is bound by the Supreme Court’s January 5 order dismissing the bail pleas of both applicants.
“Since then, there are no substantial change of circumstances as pleaded by the applicants and there arises no question to re-consider the bail of the applicants,” it said.
The court, however, clarified that nothing stated in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Khalid’s lawyer, Trideep Pias, told the court that there was a change in circumstances after the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment. He also relied on the subsequent Syed Iftikhar Andrabi ruling, which reaffirmed the principles in the KA Najeeb case on prolonged incarceration, and questioned the reasoning adopted in the case of Gulfisha Fatima.
“The Supreme Court has expressed serious reservations on the manner in which KA Najeeb was applied in the case of Gulfisha Fatima and expressed to the extent that the reasoning given in Gulfisha Fatima amounts to a hollowing out of the three-judge bench decision in KA Najeeb,” he said.
Imam’s lawyer, Talib Mustafa, pointed to the apex court’s interim bail orders for co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi, as well as the Delhi High Court’s bail order in Khuram Parvez’s case.
He argued that since both applicants had spent more than six years in custody and the protected witnesses are unlikely to be examined soon, they should be granted regular bail or, alternatively, six months’ interim bail.
Special public prosecutors Madhukar Pandey and Anirudha Mishra opposed the applications, arguing that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail pleas of both Khalid and Imam, while the former’s review petition was also dismissed. They submitted that the trial court was bound by those orders and could not grant them bail.
It was further argued that there was no substantial change in circumstances since the apex court’s decision. Therefore, the fresh bail pleas were not maintainable as the conditions laid down by the top court for renewing the bail plea are yet to be met.
On January 5, the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and Imam in the larger conspiracy case, while granting the relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had then observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.
Khalid, Imam and several others were booked under the anti-terror UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi.
The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), leaving 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
This post was last modified on July 4, 2026 7:55 pm