The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the stand of the city police on a plea by activist Umar Khalid seeking bail in a case under the anti-terror law UAPA concerning the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi.
Issuing a notice in the matter, a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan asked Delhi Police to file its response within two weeks.
Khalid’s counsel said that it was the activist’s third bail application since his arrest and that he was also seeking interim bail in the case.
The bench said it will hear Khalid’s plea on August 27, when the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam is also listed.
Khalid has challenged a trial court’s July 4 decision dismissing his bail application.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, said Imam’s bail plea was also rejected by the same trial court order, and both the cases could be taken up together by the bench.
Arrested in September 2020, Khalid has been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations of being one of the masterminds of the February 2020 riots that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Activists Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, among others, were also booked for their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy case, which is being investigated by Delhi Police’s Special Cell.
On July 4, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail application, saying it had “no option but to follow” the Supreme Court’s January 5 order and, therefore, could neither entertain the plea nor grant him the relief.
On September 2, 2025, a high court division bench denied bail to Khalid. On January 5, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict, but granted the relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had then observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.
