The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the Delhi Police’s response on activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea related to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This plea concerns Khalid’s alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi, which resulted in 53 fatalities and injuries to over 700 individuals.
A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued a notice to the police, mandating a response within two weeks. Khalid’s counsel emphasized that this marked the activist’s third plea for bail since his arrest in September 2020, where he faces severe allegations concerning the riots.
The court scheduled the hearing for Khalid’s bail plea on August 27, coinciding with the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam, providing an opportunity to evaluate both cases simultaneously.
Khalid’s latest bail application responds to a trial court decision from July 4, which rejected his plea. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing Delhi Police, noted that Imam’s bail application faced the same fate as Khalid’s, suggesting that both cases deserve concurrent examination by the bench.
In his application, Khalid faced allegations of being a mastermind in the riots, which had sparked massive protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The investigation points to a broader conspiracy which the Delhi Police’s Special Cell is actively probing, including others like Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain.
While outright dismissing Khalid’s plea, the trial court confirmed it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court’s directive issued on January 5. This order established a precedent that barred any immediate bail relief. Notably, on September 2, 2025, the high court division bench also denied Khalid bail, stating prima facie evidence against him and Imam.
The Supreme Court later upheld this decision but offered bail relief to several co-accused individuals, demonstrating a complex landscape of judicial decisions surrounding the case. The Supreme Court’s ruling suggested a nuanced ‘hierarchy of participation’ among the accused, indicating varying degrees of involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The upcoming hearing on August 27 is expected to garner significant attention, considering the implications for the ongoing legal proceedings. More importantly, it will highlight the contentious issues surrounding the enforcement of the UAPA, raising questions about civil rights, justice, and the handling of dissent in contemporary India.
As Umar Khalid prepares for his hearing, the case remains a focal point in discussions about individual rights and state authority in scenarios marked by serious allegations. Observers and activists alike will keep a close watch on the court’s approach, especially given the wider societal implications of judicial outcomes in this high-profile case.
