The Supreme Court has dismissed 2020 Delhi riots case accused Umar Khalid’s plea seeking a review of its order that denied him bail while maintaining that “material suggests” Khalid’s “involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation”, “extending beyond localised acts”.
“…We do not find any good ground and reason to review the judgment dated January 5, 2026. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed,” a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria said in its April 16 order, which was made available on Monday.
On January 5, besides Khalid, the SC had refused bail to co-accused Sharjeel Imam in the case of larger conspiracy behind the riots which killed 53 people and left over 700 injured but granted it to five others – Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad – saying all the accused did not stand on the same footing in regard to alleged culpability.
The order had cited “hierarchy of participation” to deny bail to Khalid and Imam. It had said that prosecution material showed their “central and formative role” and “involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction”.
Saying that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court had said that it “is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by the appellants… Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy.”
“The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts. The statutory threshold under Section 43D (5) of UAPA, therefore stands attracted qua these appellants”, which restricts grant for bail for those booked under UAPA.
“It establishes that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing from the remaining accused, both in prosecution narrative and in evidentiary basis relied upon. This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must inform any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, or the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent and participation,” the court had said.
Story continues below this ad
“The prosecution narrative itself delineates Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as occupying a position distinct from the remaining accused, both in terms of conceptual involvement and command over the alleged conspiracy. At the outset, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are prima facie attributed a central role and alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy. The material relied upon against them is predominantly in the nature of speeches, meetings, digital communications, and alleged strategic deliberations, commencing immediately after the passage of the CAB/ CAA…”
“The chargesheets attribute to them the role of formulating the protest strategy, including the alleged transition from sit-in demonstrations to chakka jams, selection of locations, and articulation of the broader political objective sought to be advanced. Their alleged acts are thus situated at the planning and preparatory stage, extending over a prolonged period,” the order had said.
The court also rejected the submission that they have been incarcerated for a long time, saying: “While the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants is substantial and has been duly considered, the court is not persuaded that, on the present record, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility so as to override the statutory embargo… The complexity of the prosecution, the nature of evidence relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture…”
Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020.
“In prosecutions alleging offences, which implicate the sovereignty, integrity or security of the state, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations…” it said.
Story continues below this ad
The bench, which examined the individual roles of the accused, said that with regard to Khalid, “having regard to the prosecution material as placed, including the chronology of meetings, the alleged articulation and propagation of the chakka jam strategy, the operation of coordinating committees and groups, the protected witness statements alleging preparatory and escalation-related discussions, the pleaded movement of protest activity into mixed-population zones, and the alleged systemic disruption of civic life in the national capital, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusations against Umar Khalid aeh prima facie true.”
The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Delhi Police had arrested a total of 18 people in the conspiracy case. Of them, 11 have got bail so far.
