Delhi Court Rejects Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Says Bound by Supreme Court’s Earlier Order
Karkardooma Court rules fresh applications are not maintainable in 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case; prolonged incarceration argument fails to secure relief
A Delhi court has rejected the fresh regular bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that it was legally bound by an earlier order of the Supreme Court that had refused them bail.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court, who observed that the trial court had “no option” but to follow the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on January 5, 2026. According to the court, the fresh bail applications were not maintainable in view of the binding directions already issued by the apex court.
Both Khalid and Imam are among the accused in the larger conspiracy case arising from the February 2020 Delhi riots. They face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) along with several provisions of criminal law. The prosecution alleges that they played central roles in an alleged conspiracy behind the communal violence, allegations they have consistently denied.
During the latest proceedings, the defence argued that circumstances had materially changed since the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. Their lawyers pointed to the prolonged incarceration of nearly six years without completion of trial and relied on subsequent judicial developments concerning bail jurisprudence under UAPA. They contended that continued detention violated the constitutional right to personal liberty.
The trial court, however, held that these submissions could not override the Supreme Court’s specific directions. It noted that the apex court had already prescribed the circumstances under which the accused could renew their bail requests. Since those conditions had not yet been fulfilled, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain fresh bail applications at this stage.
The court also rejected the argument that a later Supreme Court judgment in another UAPA matter constituted a sufficient “change in circumstances.” It observed that the legal questions arising from differing judicial views have already been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, making it inappropriate for the trial court to depart from the existing binding order.
The ruling highlights the continuing legal complexities surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, one of the country’s most closely watched criminal prosecutions. While several co-accused have obtained bail in recent months, the Supreme Court earlier distinguished the allegations against Khalid and Imam, describing them as being on a different footing from those facing comparatively limited accusations.
The defence is expected to examine its legal options, including approaching higher judicial forums for relief. Meanwhile, the trial in the larger conspiracy case continues, with both accused remaining in judicial custody pending further proceedings.
