The Delhi Police has opposed the fresh bail petitions filed by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court in the larger conspiracy case connected to the Delhi riots of 2020. .In the two separate but similar affidavits, the prosecution and police have argued that Imam and Khalid are the "masterminds" of the Delhi riots of 2020 and their fresh bail petitions are "illegal" and an attempt to "mislead" the Court. "It is, at the outset, submitted that the present bail proceedings are misconceived and illegal in view of the following grounds elaborated hereinunder; (a) the present Appellant is one of the ‘masterminds’ of the Delhi riots (b) the present bail proceedings are in teeth of the binding directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Appellant’s own case in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): 2026 SCC Online SC 10, (b) the Appellant has sought to mislead this Hon’ble Court by projecting the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA: 2026 SCC Online SC 881 passed in an unrelated case as a change in circumstance to maintain the present bail proceedings," the police said. .This is the third round of bail petitions filed by Khalid and Imam before the High Court. They had filed bail pleas earlier on two occasions, but all of them were rejected right up to the Supreme Court. The most recent order of the top court came in January 2026 when five people were granted bail, but Khalid and Imam were declined relief .They then filed the present round of bail petitions. They first moved the the trial court which rejected their pleas on July 4, prompting them to approach the High Court. .The Delhi Police has now told the High Court that the apex court, in its January 2026 judgement, described Imam and Khalid as the alleged "masterminds" of the riots and therefore, their continued detention is justified.The police stressed that Imam and Khalid had misread the Supreme Court's directions in the January 2026 order, which permitted a fresh bail plea only after the examination of protected witnesses was complete or one year had elapsed from the order, whichever came first.This threshold has not yet been met, the police has argued. "A plain reading of the operative portion of the judgment in Gulfisha (Supra) [January 2026 judgement which denied bail to Khalid and Imam] reveals that the applicability of Section 43D(5) of UAPA to the Appellant’s case was upheld by the Hon’ble Court. Thus, the embargo against grant of bail to the Appellant (in keeping with the statutory scheme of the UAPA) has attained finality and cannot be re-opened/re-agitated on specious grounds as is sought herein by the Appellant," the replies stated..Notably, Khalid and Imam's bail pleas rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in a different case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi wherein a different bench of the top court questioned the apex court's denial of bail to Khalid and Imam in the January 2026 verdict.Khalid and Imam's pleas argue that the same amounts to a change in circumstances.However, the police affidavit states that the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in a different case cannot override the specific findings and directions passed by the Supreme Court in Khalid and Imam's own case.According to the police,"Admittedly, the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi does not deal with the Delhi Riots case or the Appellant’s role therein. Moreover, the factual findings recorded by the Hon’ble Court in Gulfisha whereby the invocation of Section 43D(5) of UAPA was upheld in the Appellant’s case have not been doubted in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi (Supra). Thus, the statutory bar against grant of bail to the Appellant remains undisturbed and applies with full force to bail proceedings pending before this Hon’ble Court."The police have also opposed the reliance placed by the two accused on the Supreme Court's judgement in co-accused Tasleem Ahmed's case. In this matter, the Supreme Court had referred to the divergence of opinion in Syed Iftikhad Andrabi and Gulfisha Fatima cases to a larger bench and granted interim bail to Ahmed. The police has said that the reference to a larger bench cannot unsettle the law declared in Khalid and Imam's own case of January 2026 when they were denied bail.
