NEW DELHI: A Delhi court Saturday dismissed the bail pleas of 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that the sessions court “has no option but to follow the judgment dated Jan 5, 2026, as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed”.SC had denied bail to Khalid and Imam noting they stood on a “qualitatively different footing” regarding culpability in the alleged larger conspiracy, while granting bail to the other five accused subject to conditions.Additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai observed that “the issue i.e. the diversions of opinion between the judgments i.e. the judgment of Gulfisha Fatima and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi has already been referred to a larger bench and as such… the court cannot consider the present applications on any ground”.
Fresh bail pleas filed after SC’s May 18 order
The fresh bail pleas were filed after Supreme Court’s May 18 order in the Andrabi case. While granting bail in that case, a two-judge bench criticised the Jan 5 verdict and stressed that anti-terror laws should not become a tool for indefinite detention.Relying on those observations, counsel for Khalid and Imam argued that the subsequent judicial developments constituted a “change in circumstances”, making their fresh bail pleas maintainable.The defence further submitted that although SC in its Jan order had directed that the applicants would not seek bail for one year or until the prosecution’s protected witnesses were examined, “after the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, about five months have passed and even if the charge is framed in near future, in any condition the protected witnesses cannot be examined by the time as granted by the apex court”.The prosecution opposed the pleas, contending that the “Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPs of both the applicants and thereafter, even a review petition of the applicant Umar Khalid has been dismissed vide order dated April 16, 2026, and under these circumstances, this court cannot grant bail to the applicants.”It further argued that “since then, there are no substantial change of circumstances as pleaded by the applicants and there arises no question to re-consider the bail of the applicants”.On the plea that the Andrabi judgment amounted to a change in circumstances, judge Bajpai held that the sessions court “cannot even analyse if the circumstances have changed”.Referring to SC’s order, which allowed the accused to renew their bail plea only after the protected witnesses were examined or after one year, whichever was earlier, the court concluded that the applications were not “maintainable”, and dismissed the same.
