Table of Contents
Delhi High Court rejects the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Both the accused had challenged the trial court’s order denying bail in the High Court.
The matter was heard by a division bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt. The case is registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and relates to the investigation into an alleged larger conspiracy related to the violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020.
The Delhi court said that the High Court cannot change the conditions set by the Supreme Court in January 2026.The bench dismissed both appeals, taking this judicial position into account.
Based on the Supreme Court’s January 2026 order
The Delhi High Court noted that the Supreme Court, in its January 5, 2026, decision, had set specific conditions for the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. These included the condition of re-applying for bail after the completion of the testimony of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier.
The bench clarified that it cannot change that order of the Supreme Court. According to the court, doing so would not be in accordance with judicial discipline.
On this basis, the High Court said that at present there is no basis for interference in the decision of the trial court denying bail. The lawyers appearing on behalf of both had also cited different circumstances for bail.
Changed circumstances cited in bail petitions
Three key changes were cited in court on behalf of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. These included questions raised on the Supreme Court’s January decision, the interim bail granted to co-accused and the argument that several months had passed since that order.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that some other accused in the case have got interim relief on the ground of delay. In such a situation, the long period spent in jail and the progress of the case should also be taken into consideration.
However, the High Court did not consider these arguments to be different from the conditions already laid down by the Supreme Court. The court said that the terms of that order cannot be changed merely on the basis of passage of time or relief given to other accused.
The argument of equality with Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi was not accepted.
Both accused also cited the interim bail granted to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. The High Court said that the alleged roles of the accused in both the cases are not the same.
On this basis, the court said that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam cannot claim the benefit of those orders on the basis of parity. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order treating the two situations differently.
The High Court also took into account the observations made by the Supreme Court in its January judgment. The court said that in that decision both were placed in different positions in the alleged conspiracy. These comments refer to the charges and judicial record in the case, not a final finding of conviction.
High Court stated that compliance with the Supreme Court’s order is mandatory
During the hearing, the High Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline. The bench said that the lower courts and the High Court have to follow the binding orders of the Supreme Court.
In this context, the court said that it cannot amend the conditions set by the Supreme Court at its own level. Therefore, in the present circumstances, it is not possible to grant relief on the bail petitions of both.
The High Court also observed that there was no agreement between the two parties on postponing the bail plea till January. The court then passed its verdict on the petitions based on the available records and the Supreme Court order.
The trial process is still pending in the case registered under the UAPA.
This case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the violence in Northeast Delhi in February 2020. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are facing charges under several sections, including the UAPA.
Amidst arguments from both sides, the court did not give its verdict on the ultimate veracity of the allegations. The question of bail is decided at this stage on the basis of judicial conditions and available records.
Further legal proceedings will continue in the matter. This order of rejection of bail does not in itself constitute a final judgment of conviction in the case.
No immediate relief on bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
Following the Delhi High Court’s order on Wednesday, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have not yet been granted regular bail in this case.
The court considered the conditions laid down in the Supreme Court’s January 2026 order as binding on itself. however, it rejected the plea for parity, citing the differences in the alleged roles played by the two individuals in the respective cases.
Now the further legal process in this matter and the time limit set in the earlier order of the Supreme Court will be monitored. At present, the latest decision of Delhi High Court has gone against the bail petitions of both.
