Delhi Court Rejects Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail in 2020 Riots UAPA Case

Delhi Court Rejects Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail in 2020 Riots UAPA Case

On 4 July 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts in Delhi dismissed the fresh bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in the alleged larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots. The Court held the applications to be "not maintainable" in light of a binding Supreme Court order from January 2026, which restricted the trial court from reconsidering bail until either the protected witnesses in the case had been examined or one year had elapsed from the date of the order, whichever came first.

Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), one of India's most stringent anti-terror statutes. The case, registered as FIR No. 59/2020 by the Delhi Police Special Cell, alleges a pre-planned conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020, resulting in over 50 deaths. This article examines the legal reasoning behind the bail rejection, the Supreme Court's constraints on the trial court, and the broader implications for UAPA jurisprudence.

Background: FIR 59/2020 and the Larger Conspiracy Allegations

The communal violence broke out in North East Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The Delhi Police Special Cell registered FIR No. 59/2020, invoking multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) along with offences under the UAPA. The prosecution alleges that the violence was not spontaneous but was part of a pre-planned conspiracy involving several activists and student leaders.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, was arrested on 13 September 2020. Sharjeel Imam, also a JNU research scholar, was arrested earlier in January 2020 on sedition charges related to his speeches and was subsequently named in the larger conspiracy case. Both have consistently denied all allegations, maintaining that they are being prosecuted for their anti-CAA activism rather than any involvement in violence. The case involves 18 accused persons, of whom 11 have secured bail at various stages. For an overview of how FIR quashing works in such cases, see our article on quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

The Supreme Court's January 2026 Order: A Binding Constraint

The January 2026 Supreme Court order forms the crux of the present bail rejection. The Supreme Court, while dismissing earlier bail appeals by Khalid and Imam, had set specific conditions for any reconsideration: the trial court could entertain fresh bail applications only after the protected witnesses in the case had been examined, or after one year from the date of the order, whichever occurred first. Since neither condition had been satisfied by July 2026, ASJ Bajpai held that his hands were tied.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court's directions were clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for the trial court to exercise discretion. The defence had argued that changed circumstances, including the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the slow pace of the trial, warranted a fresh consideration of bail. However, the prosecution contended that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred, and the Court agreed that it was bound by the Supreme Court's order.

UAPA and the Stringent Bail Standard Under Section 43D(5)

The UAPA imposes an exceptionally high threshold for bail under Section 43D(5), which provides that no person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI of the Act shall be released on bail if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 193 BNSS), is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. This effectively reverses the ordinary bail standard, requiring the accused to demonstrate that the prosecution's case is prima facie baseless. For understanding bail procedures under the new criminal code, see our guide on anticipatory bail under BNSS 2023.

The prosecution intends to examine approximately 800 witnesses in this case, yet charges have not been framed even after five years. The defence has highlighted this delay as a ground for bail, arguing that the prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to punishment before conviction. However, courts have consistently held that the stringent bail provisions under UAPA override general principles of personal liberty in the context of national security offences.

Implications for Personal Liberty and Prolonged Detention Under UAPA

This case raises significant questions about the balance between national security and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a speedy trial. The prolonged incarceration of the accused persons, now exceeding five years, raises concerns about whether the UAPA's stringent bail provisions are being used to deny this fundamental right. The Supreme Court's own decisions, including those addressing the presumption of evidence in serious criminal cases, demonstrate the complex interplay between evidentiary standards and the right to bail.

Umar Khalid has argued that the Delhi police case rests not on physical evidence but on witness statements recorded months after the incident, calling into question their reliability. The defence has also pointed out that 11 of the 18 accused in the same case have already been granted bail, raising questions about the differential treatment of the remaining accused.

Related Reading

For more on related legal topics, see our articles on filing a complaint against a police officer under BNSS, the Supreme Court ruling on conspiracy and mere presence during bribery, and the Delhi HC ruling on writ petitions against private media for privacy violations.

Key Takeaways

1. On 4 July 2026, ASJ Sameer Bajpai dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as "not maintainable" in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case (FIR No. 59/2020). 2. The Court was bound by the Supreme Court's January 2026 order, which permits reconsideration of bail only after protected witnesses are examined or one year elapses. 3. Both accused have been in custody for over five years under UAPA, which imposes an exceptionally high bail threshold under Section 43D(5). 4. The prosecution intends to examine approximately 800 witnesses, and charges have not yet been framed despite the passage of over five years. 5. The case highlights the tension between UAPA's stringent bail provisions and the constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21.