After Imam & Gulfisha, Khalid moves SC for bail in Delhi riots case

Former JNU student Umar Khalid on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order rejecting his bail plea in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

Khalid is the third accused after Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima to approach the top court for bail in the case. They have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order rejecting their bail plea in the larger conspiracy case linked to the riots.

A Bench led by Justice Naveen Chawla of the high court had also rejected the 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 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for questioning the sovereignty, unity or territorial integrity of the country and causing disaffection against it.

They were booked under the anti-terror law UAPA and certain provisions of the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of then US President Donald Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 while Fatima was arrested in April 9, 2020, and Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, from Jehanabad in Bihar. 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 merit.

The high court rejected the bail pleas of the remaining accused on September 2, 2025, saying they did not deserve parity with the co-accused already released on bail.

“It is trite in law that merely because co-accused persons have been granted bail, would not, by itself, entitle the other accused to bail; there are other considerations and factors which weigh in for considering parity,” the high court had said, adding “the ground of parity is not made out in favour of the appellants”.

Besides demanding parity with co-accused Kalita and Narwal, the 10 accused had also sought bail on the ground that they had been in jail for over five years and the trial was likely to take more time to conclude. However, the high court rejected their second argument as well.