The Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that there has been no material change in circumstances to justify revisiting its earlier decision denying bail to activist Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Police argued that the riots were part of a pre-planned conspiracy, claiming Khalid and others cannot seek bail merely on grounds of long custody and accusing them of trying to present themselves as victims.
Khalid’s legal team countered that there is no direct evidence linking him to violence, noting that he is named in only one FIR with no recovery of weapons or materials, and sought bail on grounds of parity with other accused who have been released.
2020 Delhi Riots Case: Delhi Police Opposes Umar Khalid Bail, Says No Change in Circumstances to Revisit Bail Rejection
Khalid’s legal team, meanwhile, insisted that there is no concrete evidence connecting him to acts of violence during the riots. His lawyers pointed out that despite over 750 FIRs filed in connection with the riots, Khalid is named in just one, and no funds, weapons, or material recovery has linked him to the unrest.
Summary
In its latest submission to the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police strongly opposed bail for activist Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots case, arguing that there has been no material change in circumstances warranting a fresh look at previously rejected bail applications.
During the hearing, the police maintained that the February 2020 violence was not a spontaneous outburst but a “well-designed, pre-planned” conspiracy targeting the sovereignty of the nation. They contended that Khalid and his co-accused should not be granted bail merely on account of long custody, accusing them of attempting to portray themselves as victims.
Khalid’s legal team, meanwhile, insisted that there is no concrete evidence connecting him to acts of violence during the riots. His lawyers pointed out that despite over 750 FIRs filed in connection with the riots, Khalid is named in just one, and no funds, weapons, or material recovery has linked him to the unrest. The defence argued for bail based on parity, referencing other accused in similar cases who have already been granted release.
The case has become a focal point in the wider debate over civil liberties, systemic delays, and the balance between national security and individual rights. The Supreme Court is expected to continue hearing the matter in the coming days.
Published At: