New Delhi, September 2, 2025: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven other accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur at 2:30 PM.
The other accused whose bail pleas were rejected include Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed. All had challenged trial court orders denying them bail in the case, which stems from FIR 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the UAPA, 1967.
Arrest Details of the Accused
| Name of Accused | Date of Arrest |
|---|---|
| Sharjeel Imam | January 28, 2020 |
| Umar Khalid | September 13, 2020 |
| Athar Khan | June 29, 2020 |
| Khalid Saifi | February 26, 2020 |
| Mohd. Saleem Khan | June 24, 2020 |
| Shifa ur Rehman | April 26, 2020 |
| Meeran Haider | April 1, 2020 |
| Gulfisha Fatima | April 4, 2020 |
| Shadab Ahmed | June 11, 2020 |
Key Arguments from the Defense
During the hearings, Umar Khalid, represented by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, argued that mere membership in WhatsApp groups without sending messages does not constitute criminal activity. Pais contended that no incriminating evidence, such as money or weapons, was recovered from Khalid. He also challenged the prosecution’s claim of a “secret meeting” on February 23-24, 2020, asserting it was a public gathering, not clandestine as alleged.
Khalid Saifi, represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, questioned the applicability of UAPA based on “innocuous messages” and the prosecution’s attempt to weave narratives from them. John argued, “Can UAPA, on the basis of innocuous messages or their attempt to make stories out of such messages, become a reason to deny me bail or even a ground to prosecute me under UAPA?” She also sought bail on grounds of parity, noting that co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021.
Sharjeel Imam, represented by Advocate Talib Mustafa, maintained that he was “completely disconnected” from the co-accused and had no involvement in any conspiracy or related meetings. Mustafa highlighted that the prosecution’s allegations against Imam were limited to a speech delivered in Bihar on January 23, 2020, with no subsequent overt acts linking him to the riots.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, strongly opposed the bail pleas. Mehta argued that the accused intended to “globally defame the nation” by orchestrating riots on a specific date, coinciding with the visit of then-US President Donald Trump on February 24, 2020. He stated, “If you are doing something against the nation, you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted.” The prosecution described the riots as a “clinical and pathological conspiracy,” rejecting claims of spontaneous violence.
Case Background
The 2020 North-East Delhi riots, which left 53 dead and over 700 injured, erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). The accused, including Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal, are alleged to be the masterminds behind the violence.
The bail pleas, pending since 2022, faced delays due to judicial recusals and adjournments.
Related Developments
On the same day, a coordinate bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the bail plea of co-accused Tasleem Ahmed, reinforcing the stringent application of UAPA in this case.
The court’s decision highlights the challenges of securing bail under UAPA’s rigorous provisions, with ongoing scrutiny of the trial’s progress and the accused’s prolonged incarceration.
