The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stand of the city police regarding activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea in a case filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi.
Issuing a notice on his request, a bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan directed the Delhi Police to file its response within two weeks, setting a crucial tone for the ongoing legal proceedings.
Khalid’s counsel argued that this application marked Khalid’s third bid for bail since his arrest in September 2020, and indicated that he was also pursuing interim bail in this case.
The bench indicated it would hear Khalid’s application alongside that of co-accused Sharjeel Imam on August 27, further intertwining the fates of both defendants.
Khalid’s legal team challenged the trial court’s decision, issued on July 4, that dismissed his latest bail application, emphasizing his right to fair legal recourse.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Delhi Police, highlighted that Imam’s bail plea met a similar fate under the same trial court order, suggesting a simultaneous review by the bench.
After his arrest in September 2020, Khalid faced serious allegations stemming from his purported role as one of the masterminds behind the February 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 fatalities and injuries to more than 700 individuals.
The violent unrest erupted amid widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), further complicating the societal fabric and political discourse surrounding these contentious legislations.
In addition to Khalid, several other activists including Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain faced charges for their alleged involvement in the broader conspiracy, all of which is under ongoing investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.
On July 4, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail request, stating it had “no option but to follow” a Supreme Court order from January 5, indicating a profound impact of Supreme Court precedents on lower court decisions.
Subsequently, a high court division bench denied bail to Khalid on September 2, 2025, and reaffirmed this stance on January 5, when the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s verdict but granted bail to other co-accused.
The High Court observed a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA, underlining that the judiciary must differentiate among defendants based upon their varying levels of involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
