27 August,2026 03:16 PM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
Umar Khalid. File Pic
The Delhi Police have opposed the bail pleas of jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court, describing them as "masterminds" of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
In separate replies filed before the High Court, the police also argued that the fresh bail pleas were not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court's January 5 order, which had rejected bail for Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the case.
The prosecution said the two accused had been placed in a "qualitatively different" category from other co-accused, with the Supreme Court having identified their alleged roles as involving "command authority" and strategic direction in the alleged conspiracy.
"The present bail proceedings are misconceived and illegal in view of the following grounds... the present appellant is one of the âmasterminds' of the Delhi riots," the replies said.
The Delhi Police relied heavily on the Supreme Court's January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), in which the apex court rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused.
Referring to the Supreme Court's assessment of the prosecution material, the police said the alleged masterminds were supported by "direct, corroborative, and contemporaneous evidence", including recoveries, digital communication trails and statements indicating managerial responsibility.
"The alleged masterminds are stated to have exercised command authority and to possess the ability to mobilise or influence individuals within and outside their immediate circle," the Delhi Police quoted the Supreme Court as having observed.
The police further said the apex court had found the "risk profiles" of the accused to be "markedly dissimilar", which, according to the prosecution, justified their continued detention.
The Delhi Police contended that the present proceedings were "misconceived and illegal" and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
It argued that the Supreme Court had already specified the circumstances under which Khalid and Imam could renew their bail pleas.
According to the police, the January 5 directions allowed the two accused to renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or after one year from the date of the judgment, whichever was earlier.
The police said the present appeals had been filed before either of these circumstances had arisen.
"The present bail proceedings, having been filed before the examination of the protected witnesses or expiry of one year from the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order (i.e., before 05.01.2027) are in teeth of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's binding directions," the replies said.
It added that the Supreme Court had itself identified the circumstances that could constitute a "change in circumstances" for the accused to renew their bail pleas.
The Delhi Police also opposed the accused's reliance on the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. NIA, arguing that the decision concerned a different case and could not override specific findings and directions issued in Khalid and Imam's matter.
"The judgment of a co-ordinate bench in a different case... cannot override the specific findings and directions passed by the Hon'ble Court in the Appellant's own case," the replies said.
The police said the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi judgment did not deal with the Delhi riots case or the alleged role of Khalid and Imam.
It further argued that the findings in the Gulfisha Fatima decision, including those relating to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, had not been questioned in the later judgment.
The police similarly opposed reliance on the Supreme Court's May 22 interim order in Tasleem Ahmed vs. State (NCT of Delhi), in which the issue concerning prolonged incarceration and restrictions on bail under the UAPA was referred to a larger Bench.
According to the Delhi Police, the mere reference of a legal question to a larger Bench did not unsettle the law declared in an earlier judgment.
The prosecution relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which held that "mere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared law".
The police also referred to the apex court's observation that High Courts must decide matters according to the law as it stands and cannot decline to follow a judgment merely because its correctness has subsequently been questioned by a coordinate Bench.
"In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts," the Delhi Police said, quoting the Supreme Court.
The replies were filed in appeals challenging the July 4 orders of the Karkardooma trial court, which dismissed the third regular bail applications of Khalid and Imam in FIR No. 59 of 2020 registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
The Delhi Police urged the High Court to dismiss both appeals at the threshold, describing the proceedings as an "abuse of the process of law".
Khalid has also sought interim bail, citing prolonged incarceration and the reference pending before the Supreme Court on the interaction between Article 21 and the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Delhi Police on July 31 on Khalid's appeal and interim bail plea and listed the matter with Imam's appeal for August 27. The hearing was subsequently deferred after August 27 was declared a holiday, and the matters are now likely to be taken up on Monday.
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions and have remained in custody for several years.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined bail to Khalid and Imam while granting bail to five co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
More recently, the apex court granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delays in trial could justify the grant of bail despite restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
(With inputs from IANS)
