Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tasleem Ahmed, and Others in 2020 Delhi Riots Case

The Delhi High Court today rejected the bail applications of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tasleem Ahmed, and several others accused in the ongoing investigation of a ‘larger conspiracy’ linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.

Another notable development pertains to the judicial configuration of the ongoing trial. The order rejecting bail to Tasleem Ahmed was passed by a bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyathan Shankar in the case titled Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt of NCT Delhi. Notably, the case of Ahmed was de-tagged from the group at the request of his counsel.

Meanwhile, a different bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur addressed the bail applications of other accused including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohammed Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima.

The 2020 Delhi riots erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Investigations into the violence have implicated several activists and individuals, alleging a planned conspiracy to incite communal disharmony. The stringent provisions of UAPA were invoked against the accused, leading to restrictions on bail and enhanced scrutiny by the courts.

The court’s orders are in line with the prosecution’s case that sufficient material exists suggesting the role of the accused persons in orchestrating the communal violence that rocked Delhi in February 2020, leading to widespread loss of life and destruction of property.

These developments come amid ongoing debates on the balance between civil liberties and national security, particularly concerning the use of stringent legislations in politically sensitive cases. The denial of bail underscores the judicial caution exercised in cases involving charges under anti-terror statutes and serious allegations of conspiracy linked to public order disturbances.

The case continues to be closely followed by legal experts, civil society, and human rights observers, given its significant implications for freedom of expression and political dissent in India.