The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others who have been lodged in jail since 2020 in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots. A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur pronounced the order, rejecting the arguments put forth by the accused that their prolonged incarceration was a valid ground for release. The detailed judgment is still awaited, but the ruling marks another setback for Khalid, Imam, and co-accused including Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed.
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail pleas, maintaining that the riots were not spontaneous but part of a carefully orchestrated conspiracy to malign India on the global stage. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that speeches and communications by the accused carried a “sinister motive” and formed a “common pattern” by invoking issues such as CAA-NRC, Babri mosque, triple talaq, and Kashmir. He asserted that in cases of such grave offences, the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” could not be applied, adding, “If you do anything against your nation, you better be in jail till you are acquitted.” The Delhi Police also dismissed allegations that trial delays were intentional, stating that the right to a speedy trial does not amount to a free pass for release.
On the other hand, the defence maintained that both Khalid and Imam were wrongly implicated. Imam’s counsel argued that he was “completely disconnected” from the place, time, and persons linked to the violence, insisting that neither his speeches nor WhatsApp chats called for unrest. Similarly, Khalid and others highlighted that some co-accused had already secured bail, thereby entitling them to parity. Despite these claims, the high court sided with the prosecution’s stance that the February 2020 violence, which left 53 dead and over 700 injured during protests against the CAA and NRC, was the result of a “clinical and pathological conspiracy.” With this verdict, the accused remain behind bars as their trial continues under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC.
