Delhi Police: Opposes Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail in Riots Case

• The Delhi Police has opposed new bail petitions from activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
• Police affidavits claim Khalid and Imam are 'masterminds' of the riots and their bail applications are 'illegal' and an attempt to 'mislead' the Delhi High Court.
• The opposition cites a Supreme Court ruling in *Gulfisha Fatima v. State* as binding and dismisses *Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA* as an unrelated case presented to mislead the court.
• These are the third bail petitions filed by Khalid and Imam, with all previous applications rejected up to the Supreme Court.
• In January 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five others in a related matter, but Umar Khalid was not among them.

The Delhi Police has formally objected to the latest bail applications submitted by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi Police has formally objected to the latest bail applications submitted by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court. These petitions are part of a larger conspiracy case linked to the Delhi riots that occurred in 2020. In separate but substantively similar affidavits, the prosecution and police have asserted that both Imam and Khalid are the primary orchestrators, or 'masterminds,' behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The police contend that these new bail petitions are fundamentally 'illegal' and represent an attempt to 'mislead' the High Court.

The police affidavits explicitly state that the current bail proceedings are 'misconceived and illegal.' This strong stance underscores the rigorous opposition strategy employed by the Delhi Police in high-profile conspiracy cases. The core of their argument rests on the assertion that the appellants are key figures in the alleged conspiracy, thereby justifying their continued detention. This firm Delhi Police opposition to Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail applications highlights the ongoing legal battle in this significant case.

A central plank of the Delhi Police's argument against the bail pleas is that the proceedings contravene binding directives issued by the Supreme Court of India. Specifically, the police cited the Supreme Court's ruling in *Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): 2026 SCC Online SC 10*, arguing that the current applications are inconsistent with the principles established in that judgment, which they claim is relevant to the appellants' own case. Furthermore, the police accuse the appellants of attempting to deceive the court by presenting the Supreme Court's decision in *Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA: 2026 SCC Online SC 881* as a 'change in circumstance' to justify their fresh bail applications. The police maintain that the *Syed Iftikhar Andrabi* case is entirely unrelated to the current matter.

This is not the first instance of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam seeking relief; these represent the third set of bail petitions they have filed before the Delhi High Court. Their previous bail applications, submitted on two prior occasions, were consistently rejected by various courts, with appeals reaching as high as the Supreme Court. The most recent Supreme Court order pertaining to this broader India conspiracy case bail matter was issued in January 2026. While that ruling granted bail to five other individuals, Umar Khalid was not among them, indicating a continued judicial scrutiny of his involvement.

The Delhi Police's robust Delhi High Court bail opposition, particularly their characterization of the accused as 'masterminds' and their allegations of attempts to 'mislead' the court, sets a significant precedent for similar high-stakes cases. By framing the current proceedings as 'misconceived and illegal,' the prosecution is signaling a high evidentiary bar for any potential grant of bail. The reliance on specific Supreme Court judgments, such as the *Gulfisha Fatima v State SC judgment*, and the dismissal of *Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v NIA bail* as irrelevant, demonstrates a strategic legal approach aimed at reinforcing the prosecution's position.

This persistent opposition underscores the challenges faced by defendants seeking bail in complex conspiracy cases, especially when previous applications have been rejected at multiple judicial levels. The police's affidavit bail plea strategy, emphasizing the alleged role of the accused in the Delhi riots and challenging the legal basis of their applications, highlights the rigorous legal hurdles that must be overcome. The outcome of these ongoing proceedings will be closely watched for its implications on the interpretation of 'change in circumstance' and the standards for granting bail in cases involving serious allegations of conspiracy and public disorder.

This article demonstrates the rigorous opposition strategies employed by the Delhi Police in high-profile conspiracy cases, particularly regarding bail applications. Lawyers should note the prosecution's reliance on previous Supreme Court judgments and allegations of misleading the court, which sets a precedent for the high evidentiary bar and strategic challenges faced by defendants seeking bail in similar matters.

Source: Original reporting via source material