Holding that it could not dilute the conditions the Supreme Court had set for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam to renew their bail pleas, the Delhi High Court has dismissed their appeals in the 2020 North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, and rejected their claim to parity with co-accused who were granted interim bail on the ground of delay.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 30, dismissed the appeals filed by former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam against a trial court order refusing them bail in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Umar Khalid v. State and connected matter].
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt held that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, which had laid down specific conditions on when the two could renew their prayer for bail.
Supreme Court conditions cannot be modified
In Gulfisha Fatima, decided on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five co-accused but denied it to Khalid and Imam, permitting them to renew their pleas only on completion of the examination of the protected witnesses or on expiry of one year from that order, whichever is earlier. The High Court said it could not alter those conditions, observing:
“This court is bound by judicial discipline.”
The Bench noted that the Supreme Court had treated Khalid and Imam as occupying a position distinct from the other co-accused, describing them as the ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy. The Court had also asked counsel whether the two were willing to wait until the first week of January to press their appeals; on being told they were not, it proceeded to decide the matter.
Changed circumstances pleaded
The fresh bail applications rested on three claimed changes in circumstances: that the reasoning in Gulfisha Fatima had since been questioned by another Bench of the Supreme Court, that co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi had been granted interim bail on the ground of delay in trial, and that a further six months had passed after the Gulfisha Fatima ruling when the applications were filed.
The High Court held that the roles attributed to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi were different from those of Khalid and Imam, so no parity could be claimed on the strength of the interim bail granted to them. It concluded:
“In view of the above discussion and the overall facts of the case, specifically the conditions imposed qua the appellants in Gulfisha case, this Court cannot find fault with the decision of the trial court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.”
Background of the case
The appeals were filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act against the trial court’s order of July 4, 2026, which rejected Khalid’s third bail plea and Imam’s bail plea, the trial court holding that it had no option but to follow the Supreme Court’s judgment denying them bail.
After Gulfisha Fatima, a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed reservations about that judgment, saying it had not properly followed the three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which recognised prolonged delay in trial as a ground for bail in UAPA cases. In May 2026, the Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, which had decided Gulfisha Fatima, referred the perceived conflict among Benches on the reading of K.A. Najeeb to a larger Bench.
FIR No. 59 of 2020, investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, invokes offences under the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA. The allegations against Khalid and Imam remain to be tested at trial, which has not concluded, and they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State and connected matter
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Trideep Pais for Umar Khalid; Advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim for Sharjeel Imam; Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for the Delhi Police