Delhi High Court rejects Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s bail appeals in 2020 riots case, citing Supreme Court’s conditions for renewing their pleas

The appellants challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 4 July 2026 rejecting their applications for regular bail in FIR No. 59/2020, concerning the North-East Delhi riots and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The Supreme Court had previously rejected their bail appeals in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), while permitting them to renew their bail prayers upon completion of examination of the prosecution’s protected witnesses or expiry of one year from 5 January 2026, whichever occurred earlier.

Before the High Court, the appellants relied on subsequent decisions concerning delay and bail, parity with co-accused granted interim bail, and further passage of time.

The State submitted that the appellants’ alleged roles as central conspirators differed from those of the co-accused.

The Court was informed that arguments on charge had concluded, but the Trial Court was awaiting the outcome of proceedings concerning inspection of unrelied documents sought by a co-accused.

1. Whether the appellants could obtain bail on the asserted changed circumstances before the conditions for renewing their bail prayers specified by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima had occurred.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to bail on grounds of parity with co-accused granted interim bail, or on the basis of delay and the progress of the trial.

Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the bail-rejection order.

Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the statutory threshold for bail applies where the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case; the Supreme Court held that this threshold was attracted against these appellants on the material before it.

Article 21 requires courts to guard against continued pre-trial detention without meaningful progress, but Gulfisha Fatima specifically permitted these appellants to renew their bail prayers upon either of two stated events: completion of examination of the protected witnesses or expiry of one year from the order, whichever was earlier.

The High Court held that it was bound by judicial discipline not to modify those conditions; it also applied the distinction drawn in Gulfisha Fatima between the appellants’ alleged central roles and the roles attributed to other accused.

The Court treated the Supreme Court’s directions in Gulfisha Fatima as specifically governing these appellants.

It held that the general discussion there concerning Article 21 and Section 43D(5) did not displace the express, conditional liberty to renew their bail prayers, and that the High Court could not vary those conditions.

The subsequent decisions relied on by the appellants did not justify departing from that binding direction; nor did the Court find parity, because the Supreme Court had distinguished the appellants’ alleged central and strategic roles from those of other accused, including local-level facilitators.

On delay, the Court noted that no prosecution-caused delay was alleged, that arguments on charge had concluded, and that the Trial Court was awaiting the outcome of proceedings brought by a co-accused.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s order.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.