The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the police’s stance on activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), connected to the larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi.
A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued a notice to the Delhi Police, mandating a response within two weeks. This move marks a critical development in Khalid’s ongoing legal struggles.
Khalid’s counsel highlighted that this plea represents the activist’s third bail application since his arrest in September 2020. He also seeks interim bail while the case unfolds.
The bench will hear the plea on August 27, coinciding with the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam. Khalid has contested a trial court’s decision from July 4, which dismissed his previous bail application.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police and mentioned that Imam’s bail plea faced a similar fate under the same court order. The bench could evaluate both cases together.
Khalid, considered one of the masterminds behind the riots that resulted in the deaths of 53 individuals and injuries to over 700 others, is charged under the UAPA. The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Others implicated in this larger conspiracy include activists Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, all of whom are currently under investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.
On July 4, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail application, stating it had “no option but to follow” a Supreme Court ruling from January 5. That ruling constrained the court from entertaining his plea or granting him relief.
A division bench of the high court had previously denied Khalid bail on September 2, 2025, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2026. Meanwhile, the court granted relief to co-accused individuals including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider.
The Supreme Court observed there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA. The justices maintained that the prosecution should assess each accused’s level of participation and involvement, indicating that all accused could not be treated equally.
Khalid’s ongoing legal journey has captivated public attention, given the implications surrounding civil rights and political dissent in India. The outcomes of this case not only impact Khalid but also resonate with broader themes of justice and accountability in cases involving state laws like the UAPA.
