The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Delhi Police, seeking their response on a bail plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court has also sought a reply on a connected application for interim bail.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan has scheduled the matter for hearing on August 27. On the same day, the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam is also slated to be taken up by the court. The bench has also issued a notice on Khalid’s interim bail application, which hinges on a pending question before the Supreme Court. This question pertains to whether the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 can supersede the strict embargo on bail stipulated in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The current legal proceedings stem from an appeal challenging a trial court order dated July 4. This order had rejected Khalid’s third plea for regular bail. The trial court had stated its obligation to adhere to a Supreme Court decision from January 2026, which had previously denied bail to Khalid and Imam. Consequently, the trial court had asserted that it possessed no discretion to reconsider the matter, given the conditions laid down by the apex court.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Trideep Pais, representing Umar Khalid, informed the Division Bench that in addition to the regular bail appeal, an application for interim bail had been submitted. This application was filed in consideration of observations made by the Supreme Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case. The Additional Solicitor General, S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Delhi Police, submitted that similar matters were already under consideration by the High Court. He suggested that Khalid’s plea be heard concurrently with those cases already scheduled for August 27.
In response to these submissions, the Bench directed the issuance of a formal notice to the Delhi Police and ordered that Khalid’s case be tagged with the pending bail plea of Sharjeel Imam. The appeal specifically challenges the trial court’s July 4 order, which resulted in the rejection of the appellant’s third bail application. Recognizing the substantial overlap between the two matters, the court issued the notice and instructed counsel to appear in person for arguments on the scheduled next date.
Umar Khalid has been in judicial custody since his arrest in September 2020. He was taken into custody in connection with a broader conspiracy case registered by the Delhi Police’s special cell. The charges against him have been filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The prosecution alleges that Khalid was a participant in a conspiracy that led to the communal violence that erupted in North-East Delhi during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in 2020. The violence resulted in the deaths of over 50 individuals and left hundreds injured.
This marks Umar Khalid’s third attempt to secure release on bail. His previous bail applications were unsuccessful, with rejections extending up to the Supreme Court. In January of this year, the apex court granted bail to five co-accused individuals but denied relief to both Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. However, the legal context has seen a shift following observations made by another bench of the Supreme Court. While deliberating on a separate case, this bench raised questions about the correctness of an order that had denied bail to Khalid. The Supreme Court bench had emphasized that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” even in cases involving charges under the UAPA. It further noted that the earlier ruling appeared to be inconsistent with the principles established in the K.A. Najeeb judgment, which acknowledged that prolonged delays in trial proceedings can constitute a valid ground for granting bail, notwithstanding the stringent provisions of the anti-terror law.
The fundamental issue concerning bail under UAPA in light of trial delays has since been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court for adjudication. In his latest bail application, Khalid has argued that more than six months have passed since the Supreme Court denied him bail. He contends that during this period, the trial has made negligible progress, with arguments pertaining to the framing of charges still pending. This lack of substantial progress, he asserts, warrants a reconsideration of his continued detention.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
