High Court Seeks Delhi Police Response On Umar Khalid's Third Bail Plea In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Nupur Thapliyal
31 July 2026 11:10 AM IST
The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Delhi Police on a plea filed by former JNU scholar Umar Khalid challenging the rejection of his third bail application in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North East Delhi riots registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan directed the Delhi Police to file its reply within two weeks and granted Khalid two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. The matter will now be heard along with a similar appeal filed by co-accused Sharjeel Imam, which is listed on August 27.
The appeal has been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act against the trial court's July 4 order refusing Khalid bail.
During the hearing, senior advocate Trideep Pais appearing for Khalid, submitted that apart from challenging the rejection of bail, Khalid had also sought interim bail on the ground that the Supreme Court has referred the issue concerning grant of bail in UAPA cases to a larger bench. He argued that pending a decision by the larger bench, Khalid should be released on interim bail.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State, informed the Court that the appeal filed by co-accused Sharjeel Imam against the same trial court order is already listed on August 27 and requested that the present appeal be tagged with it.
Recording the submissions, the Court issued notice on both the main appeal and the interim bail application.
Khalid has challenged the trial court order denying him bail on July 04.
Vide the impugned order, the trial court had said that the judgment of Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi has already been referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court and as such unless the issue is settled, it could not consider the bail application of Khalid on any ground.
While also denying bail to co accused Sharjeel Imam, the trial court had added that it had no option but to follow the Supreme Court's judgment denying bail to both of them.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had said that only on the completion of the examination of the protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year from the date of said order, whichever is earlier, Imam would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail.
On January 5 the Supreme Court had granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed; it had however denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Thereafter a coordinate division bench led by Justice BV Nagarathana had expressed reservations about the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State saying that it did not properly follow the judgment delivered by a three-judge bench in 2021 in Union of India v. KA Najeebwhich recognised long delay in trial as a ground for bail in cases under UAPA.
In May, the division bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, which had rejected Khalid and Sharjeel's bail pleas, while observing that there was a "perceived conflict" among different benches regarding the understanding of the 3-judge bench judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb, referred the issue to a larger bench.
FIR 59 of 2020 is being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell. The case has been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.
Title: Umar Khalid v. State
