New Delhi, June 13, 2026 — Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have approached a Delhi sessions court with fresh regular bail applications in the 2020 Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” case. Filing their pleas before the Karkardooma Court, the two accused have cited extreme delays in the trial, pointing out that they have spent nearly six years in jail without the actual trial even getting underway.
On June 13, 2026, the court took up the fresh applications. Recognizing the gravity of the matter, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi issued a formal notice to the Delhi Police, demanding their legal response to the bail petitions. The court has scheduled the comprehensive hearing for July 4, 2026.
A Sudden Turn After the Supreme Court’s January Verdict
This legal move marks a crucial new turn in a high-profile case that has gripped national attention. Just six months ago, on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India had rejected the previous bail applications filed by Khalid and Imam. At the time, a division bench of the apex court observed that the prosecution’s initial evidence against the two showed a prima facie (at face value) case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The apex court ruled that both Khalid and Imam did not stand on the same legal footing as other co-accused due to their alleged high ranking in the “hierarchy of participation” as suspected masterminds.
Crucially, while the Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Imam in January, it simultaneously granted regular bail to five other co-accused in the same case—including activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
“Process as Punishment”: The Core of the Fresh Pleas
In their fresh petitions, legal representatives for both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam argue that the fundamental ground realities of the case have shifted significantly since January. The defense’s primary argument is centered on prolonged incarceration without trial and a complete lack of progress in the legal proceedings.
Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Sharjeel Imam, noted that despite half a year passing since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the trial court has not even managed to cross the initial hurdle of framing charges. Under Indian criminal law, framing charges is a preliminary stage where the court formally decides if there is enough ground to put an accused on trial.
The defense argues that continuous imprisonment while the state stalls or delays the legal process transforms the judicial process itself into a form of premature punishment. Imam’s petition emphasizes that he has been behind bars for nearly six years, a staggering amount of time to be held in pre-trial detention.
Recent Supreme Court Rulings Offer a Ray of Hope
What prompted these sudden, fresh filings just six months after an apex court rejection? The answer lies in recent judicial shifts within the Supreme Court itself regarding UAPA cases.
The legal team representing the activists highlighted a significant development from May 22, 2026. A coordinate bench of the Supreme Court granted interim bail to other co-accused in the same conspiracy case, such as Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. More importantly, that bench explicitly questioned the older, rigid legal interpretations previously used to deny bail to Khalid and Imam.
The defense arguments point to a recent landmark observation in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. National Investigation Agency case. In that matter, judges noted that rigid adherence to anti-terror bail restrictions should not swallow up an individual’s constitutional right to liberty, especially when there is “no proximate progression to trial in the conventional sense.” This evolution in how the judiciary views prolonged UAPA detentions has given the defense a fresh legal avenue to argue that keeping Khalid and Imam jailed indefinitely violates their constitutional rights.
Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
The legal saga stems from FIR 59 of 2020, a massive case investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. The case revolves around the devastating communal violence that swept through Northeast Delhi in February 2020. The riots erupted amidst intense nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violent clashes resulted in the tragic deaths of 53 people and left over 700 others injured.
Following the violence, the Delhi Police alleged that the riots were not spontaneous outbursts but rather part of a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” designed to destabilize the government and draw international scrutiny to India.
Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader, and Sharjeel Imam, a dual-degree scholar from the same university, were arrested in late 2020. The police named them as core ideologues and principal conspirators behind the violence. They were booked under a web of laws:
- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18, which cover unlawful activities, terrorist acts, and conspiracy.
- The Indian Penal Code (IPC): Various provisions including murder (Section 302), rioting, and promoting enmity between groups.
- The Arms Act: For the alleged use and distribution of weapons.
The prosecution’s case relies heavily on a digital trail of evidence, including logs from a WhatsApp group called the ‘Delhi Protest Support Group’ (DPSG) and public speeches delivered by the accused shortly before the violence broke out. The state claims these communications show clear intent to “bring the government to its knees.” Conversely, the defense has consistently maintained that their clients were merely exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest and that the police’s multi-thousand-page charge sheets are full of factual contradictions and manufactured narratives.
What Comes Next?
The upcoming hearing on July 4, 2026, will be a critical battleground. The Delhi Police are expected to file a detailed response strongly opposing the bail pleas, likely arguing that the severity of the charges and the alleged threat to national security outweigh any arguments regarding trial delays.
However, with courts increasingly scrutinizing the time citizens spend in jail before they are proven guilty, the Karkardooma Court’s decision will serve as a major indicator of how Indian jurisprudence balances state security laws against individual human rights.