Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and Seven Others in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

Table of Contents

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Key Activists in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

NEW DELHI, September 2, 2025 — In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to activists Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and seven others in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots. The court’s decision underscores the gravity with which it views the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Accused Individuals and Charges

The individuals whose bail applications were rejected include:

Sharjeel Imam
Umar Khalid
Athar Khan
Abdul Khalid Saifi
Gulfisha Fatima
Meeran Haider
Shifa Ur Rehman
Mohd Saleem Khan
Shadab Ahmed

These individuals are accused of orchestrating a larger conspiracy that led to the violent clashes in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries, with extensive property damage.

Legal Proceedings and Court’s Rationale

A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur pronounced the order, stating that the accused must remain in custody while trial proceedings continue. The court emphasized that the provisions under the UAPA did not permit the granting of bail in this case. The accused had been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after their bail pleas were dismissed by a trial court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the prosecution, argued that the riots were not a spontaneous occurrence but the result of a planned conspiracy aimed at defaming the nation globally. He alleged that the accused coordinated their activities through various platforms, including WhatsApp groups, to incite violence and disrupt public order.

In contrast, the defense counsel for the accused contended that their clients had been incarcerated for an extended period without trial. They argued that the delay in the judicial process amounted to a denial of justice and sought bail on these grounds.

Public Reaction and Political Implications

The court’s decision has sparked reactions from various quarters. Supporters of the accused have expressed concerns over the prolonged detention without trial, emphasizing the need for a fair and timely judicial process. They argue that the denial of bail could set a concerning precedent for the rights of individuals facing serious charges.

On the other hand, those in favor of the court’s decision assert that the severity of the charges necessitates stringent measures to ensure that justice is served. They believe that the denial of bail is a step toward upholding the rule of law and maintaining public order.