Delhi HC rejected Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam's bail pleas in the UAPA case linked to 2020 Delhi riots.
The court said the Supreme Court's January 2026 bail conditions had not been fulfilled.
Khalid and Imam argued a later Supreme Court ruling warranted reconsideration, but Delhi Police opposed their plea.
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the UAPA case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
Khalid and Imam are facing trial in the case. The immediate legal hurdle before them was the Supreme Court’s January 2026 order, which had allowed them to seek bail again only after one year or after protected witnesses were examined.
The High Court said neither condition had been met. It held that granting relief now would effectively change the top court’s order, which lay beyond its powers.
Supreme Court Limits
The High Court based its ruling on the Supreme Court’s January 2026 directions. Those directions allowed Khalid and Imam to renew their bail pleas only after one year had passed or after protected witnesses were examined.
Neither condition has been fulfilled yet. On that basis, the High Court held that a fresh bail order at this stage would run against the framework already set by the Supreme Court.
The court recorded its reasoning in clear terms. “In view of the above discussion and overall facts of these cases, specifically the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima, this court cannot find fault with the order passed by the trial court. The present appeals are therefore dismissed," the High Court said.
Earlier Bail History
This was not their first attempt. Khalid and Imam had moved the trial court after the Supreme Court denied them bail in January 2026 while granting bail to five other accused in the same matter. That earlier order shaped the route for any further plea.
The trial court rejected their fresh bail pleas on July 4. Following that rejection, both approached the Delhi High Court and challenged the trial court’s order.
Andrabi Judgment Argument
The latest pleas relied in part on a later Supreme Court ruling in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi. In that matter, a different bench of the top court had questioned parts of the January judgment that had denied bail to Khalid and Imam.
That later ruling referred to a settled bail principle under the UAPA - that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can matter while considering release. Khalid and Imam argued that the Andrabi judgment marked a change in circumstances and justified a fresh look at their bail pleas.
Delhi Police opposed that reading. The police informed the court that a judgment by a coordinate bench in a different case could not override the specific findings and directions passed by the Supreme Court in Khalid and Imam’s own matter.
