A Delhi court has dismissed the fresh regular bail applications filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s earlier order declining them bail and permitting them to renew their pleas only after the expiry of one year or completion of the examination of the prosecution’s protected witnesses, whichever occurred earlier.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts was hearing separate bail applications filed by Khalid and Imam under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The applicants argued that there had been a material change in circumstances since the Supreme Court’s judgment dated January 5, 2026 in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), in which five co-accused were granted bail while their own pleas were rejected. They relied on the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 INSC 503, which expressed reservations about the manner in which the decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 had been applied in Gulfisha Fatima. The defence also referred to the interim bail granted to co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi, as well as the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in Khuram Parvez v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 DHC 5092-DB, contending that Khalid had already spent over six years in custody and deserved similar relief.

The prosecution opposed the applications, submitting that Umar Khalid’s earlier bail plea had been rejected by the trial court, the Delhi High Court, and ultimately by the Supreme Court, with even the review petition having been dismissed. It argued that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred since then to justify reconsideration of bail.

Accepting the prosecution’s objection, the trial court held that it could not examine whether the subsequent judgments constituted a change in circumstances because the issue arising from the divergent views in Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi had itself been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Until that question is authoritatively settled, the trial court observed, it remained bound by the Supreme Court’s order dated January 5, 2026.

The Court further noted that the Supreme Court had expressly permitted the applicants to renew their bail requests only after the examination of the prosecution’s protected witnesses or upon the expiry of one year from its order, whichever occurred earlier. As neither condition had been satisfied, the Court held that the present applications were not maintainable and dismissed them. It clarified that the order should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the prosecution’s case.