Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: SG Opposes Bail of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and Others Citing National Security
Bail Pleas Reserved by Delhi High Court
On July 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on the bail pleas filed by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and six other accused in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur reserved the matter after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Leads Opposition to Bail
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta opposed the bail pleas, citing the grave implications of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He emphasized that the case involved mass violence impacting national security and territorial integrity, and hence bail should not be granted lightly.
SG Mehta was accompanied by Special Public Prosecutors Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey, and Deputy Commissioner of Police Pramod Kushwaha also attended the hearing.
Allegations of Terrorism and Anti-National Conspiracy
The SG pointed to statements allegedly made by Sharjeel Imam, including inflammatory comments about separating the “Chicken Neck” (Siliguri Corridor) from the rest of India and references to violence being effective only if “100–200 people die.” According to the prosecution, such statements reflect seditious intent and a pre-meditated plan to incite violence.
He further argued that the accused had planned disruptive activities during the visit of then US President Donald Trump in February 2020, intending to malign India’s global image.
Use of Protected Witness Statements and Digital Evidence
Referring to protected witness statements, the SG alleged that there were coordinated meetings, including one reportedly attended by Umar Khalid and other co-accused. It was claimed that the accused were part of WhatsApp groups that coordinated logistics and communication related to the alleged conspiracy.
One protected witness had stated that there was a plan to disable CCTV cameras to evade identification, a claim reportedly supported by annexures in the chargesheet.
Additionally, the use of catapults to hurl bricks, stones, and petrol bombs was cited as evidence of premeditated violence.
Financial Trail and Allegations of Funding Riots
According to SG Mehta, five individuals — Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and Meeran Haider — financed the riots. It was submitted that Tahir Hussain allegedly converted white money into black to fund the unrest.
The prosecution asserted that while protests were the ostensible aim, the real intent was to orchestrate coordinated riots, undermining public order.
Defense Arguments: Delay and Lack of Charges
The counsel for the accused strongly contested the SG’s claims, highlighting that the trial has seen significant delay — even charges have not yet been framed, and the case remains at the arguments-on-charge stage despite the passage of several years since the FIRs were filed.
They also pointed to selective arrests and disproportionate application of UAPA as grounds for granting bail.
Legal Background and Parallel Bail Orders
This case falls under the ambit of the Delhi Police’s “larger conspiracy” charge sheet, which includes 18 accused under UAPA, with two currently absconding.
Notably, some accused in related FIRs — including Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha — were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in June 2021. Ishrat Jahan was also granted bail by the trial court.
However, the bail applications of Umar Khalid and others were earlier rejected by the trial court, citing UAPA’s stringent conditions.
Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots
The North-East Delhi riots in February 2020 led to the death of 53 people and injuries to hundreds. Over 700 FIRs were registered across various police stations. The riots were preceded by widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The prosecution’s case in the present matter is that a coordinated conspiracy — cloaked in civil protests — was carried out to incite communal riots, and disrupt peace in the capital.
Next Steps: Awaiting High Court’s Decision
With the High Court having reserved its verdict, the future course of the case will depend on whether it finds the allegations sufficient under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which restricts bail if a prima facie case is made out. The case will be closely watched given its political overtones, impact on civil liberties, and the broader questions it raises about protest, sedition, and state accountability.
Comments
Post a Comment