Delhi HC Seeks Police Reply on Umar Khalid’s UAPA Bail Plea in 2020 Riots Case

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the city police on activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) relating to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice to the Delhi Police and directed it to file its reply within two weeks. The court said it would hear Khalid’s plea on August 27, along with the bail application of co-accused Sharjeel Imam, whose matter is also listed before the bench.

Khalid has challenged the July 4 order of the trial court, which rejected his bail application. His counsel informed the High Court that this was his third bail application since his arrest and that he was also seeking interim bail in the matter. Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said that Imam’s bail plea was also dismissed through the same trial court order and suggested that both matters could be heard together.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and booked under the UAPA in connection with allegations that he was among the alleged masterminds of the conspiracy behind the riots that broke out in north-east Delhi in February 2020. The violence, which occurred during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured.

Several others, including Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, have also been accused in the larger conspiracy case being investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The trial court had rejected Khalid’s bail plea on July 4, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier observations in the case. In September 2025, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to Khalid, and the Supreme Court later upheld that decision while granting relief to some other accused.

The Supreme Court had observed that there was a prima facie case under the UAPA against Khalid and Imam, noting that accused persons could not be treated identically due to differences in their alleged roles and the “ hierarchy of participation ” in the case.