Delhi HC defers Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail pleas to September 30

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday put off the hearing date for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the alleged large conspiracy behind the riots in the north-east Delhi in February 2020, under the UAPA till September 30. The prosecution was asking for time as Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju could not be present on health grounds. The Delhi Police has rejected the pleas saying the court's order of 5 January ought to have been followed and it was too early to give them a hearing, but the court was called to balance the bail bar of UAPA with the prolonged custody.

An appeal filed in the Delhi High Court asking for a bail hearing was pending only for consideration of time on Monday. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was not available due to health issues, special public prosecutor Madhukar Pandey told a bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt.

The bench ruled that "matter shall be adjourned for September 30th. The court had also appointed November 4 as a date for the appeal against the bail of Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain.

The petitions object to what

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly being among the masterminds of the February 2020 riots in the north-east Delhi which claimed lives of 53 and injured over 700 people.

According to some court documents, the toll was 54. They both have challenged the order of trial court in regular bail application filed on July 4, 2026. Khalid is challenging the refusal of his third bail application while Imam's bail application is linked with FIR No. 59 of 2020 lodged by the Delhi Police Special Cell.

The Supreme Court's ruling in January

The trial court has cited a January 5 Supreme Court ruling. Five others—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad—were granted bail by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria on Monday while Khalid and Imam continued to be denied bail.

The court said the prosecution material reveals that the two played a "central and formative role" and found that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted. It allowed Imam to renew his application after the protected witnesses were examined, or after one year, whichever was earlier.

S.Q.R. Ilyas, Khalid's father, told reporters that day that he had no comment and that the judgment was before them all. Khalid had also filed a review petition, which was rejected in an order dated April 16.

The State's objection

The Delhi Police, in a reply, has termed the new proceedings "misconceived and illegal". Arguing both conditions set by the Supreme Court had not been met when they were filed, and it relies on “alleged” recoveries, digital communication trails, and statements.

Custody, delay and a wider reference

The accused's bail pleas were rejected by the Delhi High Court on 2nd September 2025 and the Supreme Court on 10th December 2025. A Delhi court granted Khalid interim bail for 15 days between December 16 and 29 to go to his sister's marriage. Khalid and Imam were in jail six years ago without being charged, according to the Wire.

In the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, India Legal reports that the High Court has now sought clarification on how the Supreme Court's decision in the said case will apply when the accused has been in custody for long and the trial has yet to end.

On May 22 the Supreme Court allowed the six co-accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad bail for six months and remanded the issue of prolonged arrest of the UAPA under-trial to a larger bench.

Two positions on the record

The contest for the available jobs was declared in December. Delhi Police termed the riots as an "orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed attack on the sovereignty of India", while the counsel for the accused said the speeches will, at best, be "unlawful activities". In January, the Supreme Court further stated that a UAPA bail hearing is not a place to assess defence or consider evidence.

What lies ahead

Both issues will be addressed by the bench on Sept. 30. It is the first question that the State has asked: "Had the petitions come in before the stage that the Supreme Court set? But if they overcome that obstacle, the court will have to balance the January decision with the Najeeb chain of command. The backdrop is the Supreme Court's May reference.

Nine days later, the same questions will be on the bench: what the Supreme Court's time schedule allows, and for how long is a custody a burden on a statute that has a high bail threshold?

"I have nothing to say. The judgement is before you." — S.Q.R. Ilyas, father of Umar Khalid, January 5, 2026