Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam again:Both accused of larger conspiracy behind 2020 Delhi riots

A Delhi court on Saturday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai rejected pleas of both accused. The court said the judgment in the cases of Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi had already been referred to a larger bench and, until the legal issue is settled, it could not consider the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam on any ground. The judge said there was no option but to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling refusing bail to the two accused. The court further noted that the Supreme Court had directed that Khalid and Imam would be free to renew their bail pleas only after the examination of the protected witnesses was completed or upon the expiry of one year from the date of its order, whichever came earlier. Earlier, the Karkardooma Court reserved the order after hearing arguments from counsel for the accused and the Delhi Police, news agency ANI reported. “I will pass the order today if the dictation is completed. Otherwise, it will be passed on Monday,” Judge Bajpai said. The accused moved the trial court after the Supreme Court dismissed their earlier bail pleas on January 5, 2026. Sharjeel Imam cites 6 years in custody, no progress in trial Sharjeel Imam’s fresh bail plea argues that there has been no significant progress in the trial despite more than six months having passed since the Supreme Court’s judgment. It also states that he has remained in judicial custody for nearly six years. The application, filed by advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, contends that the trial has not progressed even to the stage of framing charges, with arguments on the charge yet to conclude. According to the plea, the situation remains unchanged from the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Gulfisha Fatima case, where it noted that there was “no proximate progression to trial in the conventional sense.” Plea cites recent SC rulings Imam’s application also relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency case, arguing that it marked a departure from the principles laid down in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment and restored the constitutional significance of the three-judge Bench ruling in KA Najeeb on prolonged incarceration and bail. The plea further points to the Supreme Court’s May 22, 2026 order in the Tasleem Ahmed case, in which interim bail was granted to a co-accused in the same larger conspiracy case. It notes that the court simultaneously referred the broader legal question concerning bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. Separate bail plea filed by Umar Khalid A separate application seeking regular bail has also been filed on behalf of Umar Khalid. Earlier, the trial court issued notices to the Delhi Police on June 9 in Khalid’s case and on June 13 in Imam’s case, seeking its response to their bail applications. ​