Delhi riots case: Police asks HC to reject Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's fresh bail pleas

The Delhi Police has asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss fresh bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, arguing that both have returned to court before the stage fixed by the Supreme Court for seeking bail again.

The Delhi government described the present proceedings as "misconceived and illegal" and said the petitions seek to get around directions issued by the Supreme Court in its January 5, 2026 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Police point to Supreme Court's earlier order

The State's main argument is that the Supreme Court had provided a specific stage at which Khalid and Imam could again approach the court for bail.

The Supreme Court had said they could renew their applications after the prosecution finished examining the protected witnesses it relies on, or after one year from January 5, 2026, whichever came first.

The police have argued that neither condition had arisen when the latest proceedings were filed. It has therefore asked the High Court to reject the pleas at the threshold.

State cites alleged 'masterminds' role

The police have also relied heavily on the Supreme Court's earlier observations about the alleged roles of the two accused.

According to the State's reply, the material cited against Khalid and Imam includes recoveries, digital communication records and statements that allegedly point to managerial responsibility. The Supreme Court had described the material as prima facie indicating a "central and formative role" involving planning, mobilisation and strategic direction.

The State has also referred to the court's description of them as alleged "masterminds" of the conspiracy.

In Khalid's case, the police separately cited the Supreme Court's observation that the alleged masterminds exercised "command authority" and could mobilise or influence others.

State rejects reliance on later judgments

The defence has also relied on later Supreme Court developments, but the State has opposed that argument. It cited the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, arguing that it arose from a different case and did not concern the Delhi riots or the allegations against Khalid and Imam.

The State further referred to the Supreme Court's May 22, 2026 order in Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), where differences between Gulfisha and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi were referred to a larger bench.

According to the police, that reference does not by itself override the earlier judgment in Gulfisha. Until the larger bench rules, the State says the Delhi High Court remains bound by the existing directions.

For this position, it has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference.

UAPA bail bar remains, police says

The State has also argued that the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act continue to apply to Khalid and Imam.

It said the Supreme Court had already upheld the provision while considering their earlier bail proceedings and that the subsequent judgments cited by the accused have not changed that position.

The police have asked the High Court to allow it to rely on the charge sheets and supporting documents during the hearing and submit additional material if required. It has ultimately urged the court to dismiss the fresh appeals, calling the proceedings an abuse of the process of law.