2020 Delhi riots: SC refuses to give two weeks to police for filing reply on bail pleas of Khalid, Imam

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the Delhi Police’s failure to file their response to bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, and five others arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria -- which had on September 22 issued notice to the Delhi Police on the bail pleas – turned down Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju’s request to grant two weeks to file counter-affidavits to the petitions filed by Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman anad Md Saleem Khan.

“We have given you enough time. You may be appearing for the first time. Last time we issued a notice and we said in that open court that we will hear this matter on October 27th and will dispose it of…” the Bench told the ASG who represented the Delhi Police.

“What is the question of a counter-affidavit in a bail matter?... You file counter. But, we will not give you two weeks,” it said, posting the matter for hearing on Friday.

"On Friday, you ensure you have proper instructions...we will hear it,” the Bench added.

“See also Mr. Raju, examine if you can think of coming out with something....,” Justice Kumar asked, implicitly suggesting to consider if bail could be granted on concession on the ground of delay.

The top court asked the ASG to consider if the accused could be granted bail in view of the fact that most of them had already spent five years in custody.

“See if you can, Mr Raju...if something can be done...This is only about the consideration of bail. See, five years are over already,” the Bench told Raju.

“Let me have a look at it… But sometimes appearances can be deceptive”, ASG Raju responded.

On behalf of the accused, senior counsel Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi opposed the ASG’s request for adjournment. "When the matter is about delay, there can’t be more delay," Singhvi said.

A Delhi High Court Bench led by Justice Naveen Chawla had on September 2 denied them bail, saying "conspiratorial" violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens couldn't be allowed.

The high court had also dismissed bail pleas of co-accused Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi.  The bail plea of another co-accused Tasleem Ahmed was dismissed by another Delhi High Court Bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad.

The accused are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between various groups, making statements conducing to public mischief under the IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA, 1967 for allegedly questioning the sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity of India and causing disaffection against it.

Besides the UAPA, the accused were also booked under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the "larger conspiracy" behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of the then US President Donald Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 while Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 and Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020 from Jehanabad in Bihar. Meeran -- who was arrested in April 2020 – was granted 10-day interim bail in August 2024 on humanitarian grounds. They have been in jail for more than five years.

In June 2020, accused Safoora Zargar was granted bail on account of her pregnancy while in June 2021, the High Court gave bail to three other accused - Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal on merits.

On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court turned down bail pleas of 10 accused, including Khalid, Imam, Fatima and Haider, saying they did not deserve parity with the co-accused already released on bail.

Besides demanding parity with co-accused Kalita and Narwal, the 10 accused had also sought bail on the ground that they have been in jail for over five years and the trial was likely to take more time to conclude.

However, the high court had rejected their second argument as well. “With respect to the argument of delay and prolonged incarceration… the present case involves complex issues, and the trial is progressing at a natural pace,” it had said.