Kumar Bahukhandi
A Delhi court has rejected Umar Khalid’s fresh bail plea in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case. File Photo Credit-channel24india.com
Trial court holds that it has ‘no option’ but to follow the Supreme Court’s January order; defence relies on the top court’s subsequent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA which it said reaffirmed the principle that prolonged incarceration could justify bail
A Delhi court on Saturday July 4, 2026 dismissed the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January order which had put a couple of conditions on the same.
The Supreme Court, on January 05, 2026 had rejected the bail pleas of the two and had expressly directed that the applicants could renew their bail requests only after the protected witnesses in the case were examined or upon the expiry of one year from January 5, 2026, whichever was earlier.
In a common order for both Imam and Khalid, who are languishing in jail for over five years under charges of UAPA, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court held that the trial court had “no option” but to follow the Supreme Court’s directions.
“Thus, following the said order of the Hon’ble 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.
Defence claims circumstances changed
The defence argued that there had been a significant change in circumstances since the Supreme Court rejected the bail pleas of their clients. It relied on the top court’s subsequent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, which it said reaffirmed the principle that prolonged incarceration could justify bail. Reliance was also placed upon the interim bail granted to co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi and on the Delhi High Court’s recent bail order for Khurram Parvez.
Contending that the protected witnesses were unlikely to be examined anytime soon despite nearly five months having elapsed, the defence sought regular bail or, alternatively, six months’ interim bail.
Opposing the applications, the prosecution submitted that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail pleas of both applicants in January 5, 2026, and that Khalid’s review petition had subsequently been dismissed on April 16, 2026. It argued that there had been no substantial change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of bail.
The trial court declined to examine the defence’s argument on changed circumstances, observing that the apparent divergence between the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case had already been referred to a larger Bench.
