The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 30, rejected the third bail applications of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
A Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt dismissed their pleas, holding that the conditions set by the Supreme Court in its January 2026 order had not yet been fulfilled.
The court said the Supreme Court had allowed Khalid and Imam to approach the courts for bail again either after the examination of protected witnesses was completed or after one year from the date of its order, whichever came earlier.
The High Court said granting bail before those conditions were met would effectively mean changing the Supreme Court’s order, which it could not do.
“In view of the above discussion and overall facts of these cases, specifically the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima, this court cannot find fault with the order passed by the trial court. The present appeals are therefore dismissed,” the High Court said.
Third Bail Plea Rejected
Khalid and Imam are facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The violence left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
Umar Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, while Sharjeel Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020.
The two had approached the trial court after the Supreme Court rejected their bail pleas in January 2026 while granting bail to five other accused. The trial court rejected their fresh applications on July 4, after which they moved the Delhi High Court.
This is the third time the High Court has rejected their bail pleas in the case.
Arguments Over Supreme Court Judgment
Khalid and Imam had argued that a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi amounted to a change in circumstances and justified reconsideration of their bail applications.
The Andrabi case involved questions about prolonged incarceration and delays in trial in UAPA cases. The accused argued that these considerations could be relevant while deciding bail.
The Delhi Police opposed the argument, saying that a judgment by a coordinate Bench in another case could not override the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in Khalid and Imam’s own case.
The police have alleged that Khalid and Imam were among the “masterminds” behind the alleged conspiracy. The case also names activist Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain among the accused.
The High Court, however, focused on the conditions set by the Supreme Court and said it could not modify those directions.
The trial in the case is continuing.
