New Delhi: The Delhi Police has opposed fresh bail applications filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, telling the Delhi High Court that the petitions are "illegal" and are being deployed to "mislead" the court by claiming a change in circumstances.
Police reply stresses no change in circumstances
In a detailed affidavit filed in the High Court, the police said the two accused remain among the "masterminds" behind the riots and that there has been no material alteration in the facts warranting bail. The Delhi Police argued that the Supreme Court's earlier order in the related appeals — which granted bail to some co-accused while denying it to Khalid and Imam — effectively precludes reopening the question on speculative grounds.
“illegal and an attempt to mislead”
The police relied on the coordinate bench judgment that refused bail to the two appellants while granting it to others, noting the apex court had observed the accused's "risk profiles" are markedly dissimilar. According to the reply, the Supreme Court had also placed an implicit restriction on immediate bail for Khalid and Imam, permitting a fresh challenge only after specified developments such as examination of protected witnesses or the lapse of a year from the judgment.
Delhi Police countered the contention that a later Supreme Court decision — in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v/s NIA — signals a change of circumstance. The police submission maintained Andrabi did not relate to the Delhi riots and did not disturb the factual findings recorded by the bench in the appeals connected with Gulfisha Fatima and others.
Legal posture and next steps in court
Khalid and Imam have approached the High Court after a trial court rejected their third bail applications in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The High Court had issued notice on the fresh pleas last month.
The police argument emphasises statutory constraints under the UAPA and urges the High Court not to re-agitate the matter on what it described as "specious grounds". The submission contends that reliance on precedents from unrelated matters cannot override the Supreme Court's specific directions in the appellants' case.
- Accusations: Khalid and Imam are named as key conspirators in the 2020 North East Delhi riots case.
- Legal basis: Case is prosecuted under the UAPA; Supreme Court earlier denied the two bail while granting bail to others.
- Police stance: No change in facts or circumstances; later judgments do not affect the specific findings holding against the accused.
Background and context
The litigation stems from alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in parts of North East Delhi in February 2020. Multiple accused have faced charges under various criminal provisions as well as the UAPA in connection with alleged roles in instigating and coordinating violence.
The Supreme Court in its earlier order had granted bail to some of the accused while denying it to Khalid and Imam, while indicating that they might renew bail applications after certain conditions were met — including the examination of protected witnesses or the passage of one year.
| Event | Significance |
|---|---|
| 2020 North East Delhi riots | Trigger for multiple prosecutions and UAPA charges |
| Supreme Court appellate order | Bail granted to some; Khalid and Imam denied bail with conditional reopening |
| Fresh bail petitions | Moved in High Court after trial court's rejection of third bail applications |
The police have urged the High Court to treat the bail petitions with caution, arguing that the gravity of allegations, the role attributed to the accused and statutory parameters of the UAPA justify continued custodial litigation.
Broader implications
Granting bail in UAPA cases has been a contentious legal and political subject, with courts balancing individual liberty against national security and public order concerns. The police submission underscores the prosecutorial position that where courts have made specific factual findings regarding risk profiles and involvement in organised wrongdoing, those findings cannot be readily displaced by comparisons to other judgments.
The matter will be listed for further hearing before the High Court. Lawyers for the appellants have argued in earlier hearings that the legal landscape has evolved and changes in case law must inform current bail considerations; the police reply seeks to confine the court to the factual matrix of the riots-related proceedings.
This development adds another chapter to prolonged judicial proceedings arising from the 2020 riots, which continue to attract public attention and repeated litigation at different judicial forums.
