Delhi Riots Case: Police Tells High Court Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Cannot Seek Fresh Bail Yet

New Delhi: The Delhi Police has asked the Delhi High Court to reject the fresh bail appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, arguing that the two accused have approached the court before the time fixed by the Supreme Court for renewing their bail pleas.  

The State has described the proceedings as "misconceived and illegal" and said the appeals amount to an attempt to bypass the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its January 5, 2026 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi).  

In its reply, the State has pointed out that the Supreme Court had provided a specific stage at which Khalid and Imam could again approach the court for bail. 

The Supreme Court had said that they would be at liberty to renew their bail pleas after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution was completed, or after one year from January 5, 2026, whichever was earlier. 

The State has contended that the present proceedings were filed before either of these events took place and are therefore contrary to the Supreme Court's directions. 

The State has made the Supreme Court's findings about the alleged roles of Khalid and Imam a central part of its opposition. It has relied on observations that the two were alleged "masterminds" of the conspiracy and that the prosecution material against them included direct, corroborative and contemporaneous evidence. 

According to the reply, the material referred to recoveries, digital communication trails and statements indicating managerial responsibility. The Supreme Court had also observed that the material prima facie attributed to the two a "central and formative role" involving planning, mobilisation and strategic direction. 

The State has argued that the January 5 Supreme Court order was not simply an unrestricted permission to file another bail application. According to the reply, the court had itself identified the circumstances that would allow Khalid and Imam to renew their bail pleas. The State has therefore rejected the argument that the direction was merely a grant of "liberty" and not a condition governing when a fresh bail plea could be considered. It has said that filing a bail proceeding before the specified stage amounts to a misreading of the Supreme Court's order. 

In Khalid's case, the State has separately relied on the Supreme Court's observation that the alleged masterminds exercised "command authority" and had the ability to mobilise or influence individuals. The State has argued that this made Khalid's alleged role and risk profile different from those of other accused. It has consequently opposed any claim for bail based on orders passed in favour of co-accused, maintaining that the Supreme Court had already recognised significant differences in the alleged roles of the accused. 

The State has also opposed the reliance placed by Khalid and Imam on subsequent Supreme Court developments. It has referred to the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, arguing that the decision arose in an unrelated case and did not deal with the Delhi riots case or the specific allegations against the two accused. According to the State, a judgment in another case cannot override the specific findings and directions passed by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha, which directly dealt with their bail proceedings. 

The State has further relied on the Supreme Court's May 22, 2026 order in Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), in which the divergence between the views expressed in Gulfisha and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi was referred to a larger bench. The State has argued that the mere reference of an issue to a larger bench does not wipe out the earlier law declared by the Supreme Court. Until the larger bench decides the issue, according to the State, the existing judgment continues to hold the field. 

For this argument, the State has cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. It has relied on the principle that a mere reference to a larger bench does not unsettle the law already declared and that High Courts are required to follow the law as it stands unless the Supreme Court specifically directs otherwise.  

The State has therefore maintained that the Delhi High Court remains bound by the operative directions in Gulfisha until the larger bench decides the reference. 

The State has also argued that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act remains applicable to Khalid and Imam. It has submitted that the Supreme Court had already upheld the applicability of the provision while considering their earlier bail proceedings and that the subsequent developments relied upon by the appellants have not removed that finding. 

The State has therefore urged the High Court not to reopen the issue through the present appeals. The government has sought liberty to rely upon the chargesheets and documents annexed to them during the hearing and to place additional material before the High Court, if required, to explain the alleged role of the appellants. It has ultimately urged the High Court to dismiss the criminal appeals at the threshold, describing the present proceedings as an abuse of the process of law.