The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stance of the city police regarding a bail plea filed by activist Umar Khalid under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This plea concerns allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi, which resulted in the tragic loss of 53 lives and left over 700 injured.
Issuing a notice in the matter, a bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan instructed the Delhi Police to file their response within two weeks. Khalid’s legal team emphasized that this marks the third bail application since his arrest in September 2020, additionally requesting for interim bail in the ongoing case.
The court plans to hear Khalid’s plea on August 27, coinciding with the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam, highlighting a significant juncture in the case. Khalid has contested a trial court’s decision made on July 4, which dismissed his previous bail application.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Delhi Police, noted that Imam’s bail plea faced a similar fate due to the same trial court order. The bench hinted at the possibility of addressing both cases together during the upcoming hearing.
Khalid has been implicated under the UAPA, as authorities allege he played a key role in orchestrating the riots that erupted amidst protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Alongside Khalid, several other activists, including Sharjeel Imam and Khalid Saifi, as well as former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, face similar charges of involvement in this alleged conspiracy.
The trial court, in its July 4 ruling, cited that it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court’s directive from January 5 and subsequently could neither consider Khalid’s plea nor provide relief. This decision has been pivotal, setting the stage for ongoing discussions regarding the nature of UAPA charges.
On September 2, 2025, a division bench of the Delhi High Court denied bail to Khalid. The Supreme Court later upheld this decision on January 5, although it provided relief to co-accused individuals, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. Notably, the bench remarked that a prima facie case existed against Khalid and Imam under UAPA and recognized that the hierarchy of participation among the accused varied significantly.
