New Delhi, On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court denies bail to nine accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots* “larger conspiracy” case under the stringent UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).
A bench led by Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur delivered the verdict, summarily stating, “All appeals are dismissed”. A separate bench headed by Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar likewise denied bail to another accused, Tasleem Ahmed.
Advertisement
There is no detailed written order yet; only the bench’s pronouncement and a verdict awaited in print.
Who Were Denied Bail?
The accused whose bail petitions were rejected include:
Umar Khalid
Sharjeel Imam
Gulfisha Fatima
Khalid Saifi (United Against Hate founder)
Athar Khan
Mohd Saleem Khan
Shifa-ur-Rehman
Meeran Haider
Shadab Ahmed
Additionally, bail was denied to Tasleem Ahmed by the separate bench.
Court’s Reasoning and UAPA Factor
The Delhi High Court denies bail based on several pivotal legal refusals:
Advertisement
UAPA’s stringent nature: The court noted there was no provision for bail under UAPA, emphasizing the rigorousness of anti-terror laws.
Seriousness of charges: Described as premeditated and orchestrated conspiracy, not spontaneous violence, thus justifying continued custody.
Safety and public order concerns: Solicitor General argued that releasing accused could undermine national sovereignty and public harmony.
Defense Arguments & Trial Delays
The defense raised multiple critical points:
Prolonged incarceration without trial: Many accused have been in custody for over five years, with charges yet to be framed. They argued this violated due process and justice.
Parity with co-accused: They cited the 2021 HC bail granted to Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, arguing for equal treatment.
Lack of incriminating evidence: Umar Khalid’s lawyer contended mere WhatsApp group membership cannot constitute criminal intent; no weapons were found, and his speeches were peaceful.
Witness credibility questioned: Defense challenged anonymity and reliability of prosecution’s witnesses.
Prosecution’s Allegations of Conspiracy
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, firmly opposed bail:
Characterized the 2020 riots as a well-orchestrated conspiracy aimed at dividing India along religious lines and tarnishing its global image, notably tied to then-US President Donald Trump’s visit schedule.
Emphasized that extended detention does not automatically warrant bail, especially in cases threatening national security.
Highlighted that motivating violence via WhatsApp, covert meetings, and aggressive speeches showed intent to incite communal unrest.
Comparisons and Legal Precedents
To understand the precedent behind such decisions:
The Supreme Court of India has held that UAPA cases allow for stringent bail standards, requiring prima facie evidence of innocence.
The Rajasthan HC previously granted bail on prolonged trial grounds, but the Delhi HC’s current verdict underscores differing interpretations in terrorism-linked cases.
Awaiting Written Order: A detailed judicial order is pending, illuminating the court’s rationale, especially on UAPA interpretation and evidence credibility.
Speedy Trial Demand: Defense continues to press for expedited trial, citing over 1,000 witnesses and severe delays.
Legal and Human Rights Implications
Issue
Implications
Extended Detention
Raises alarms about justice delayed being justice denied.
UAPA’s Scope
Its draconian bail threshold may contravene fundamental rights.
Disparities in Bail
Highlights potential unequal legal treatment among co-accused.
Free Speech Concerns
Protests vs. conspiracy lines risk chilling dissent in democratic spaces.
Transparency & Fairness
Reliance on covert witnesses may erode trust in judicial processes.
Legal experts and rights groups argue the verdict signals a pattern where free expression and protest risk being criminalized under broad counterterror laws.
In an emphatic ruling on 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court denies bail to nine activists, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, underlining that national security and UAPA’s strict provisions outweigh prolonged detention and trial delays. While the defense sees this as a travesty of justice, citing due process violations, the court held firm on concerns of premeditated conspiracy.
With appeals likely headed to the Supreme Court, this case remains a lightning rod in the clash between civil liberties and national law enforcement frameworks.
