Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Move Court Seeking Bail in Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

Nearly six years into their incarceration, the two activists have returned to the Karkardooma court, citing a lack of progress in trial proceedings as the primary ground for their plea.

The legal battle surrounding FIR 59 of 2020 has hit another milestone. This week, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam moved court seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, marking a significant turn in a trial that has stretched across half a decade. The proceedings, currently being handled by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell, have remained a focal point of intense legal and public scrutiny since the violence in North East Delhi.

Vacation Judge Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi of the Karkardooma Courts has issued a notice to the Delhi Police, seeking their formal response to the applications. The matter is now listed for a hearing on July 4, setting the stage for what is expected to be a high-stakes argument over the delay in judicial processes.

The Push for Liberty

The fresh attempt at securing bail comes in the wake of observations made by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court, which questioned the previous denial of relief to the accused. For Sharjeel Imam, the core of the argument is the duration of his confinement. With nearly six years already spent behind bars, his plea emphasises that the trial is at a near-standstill; specifically, the arguments on the framing of charges remain incomplete.

This case, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) alongside several sections of the Indian Penal Code, involves a long list of co-accused, including Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Natasha Narwal, among others. The sheer scale of the list of individuals named in the charge sheet has often been cited as a reason for the slow pace of the trial.

Why It Matters

The broader implication here is the ongoing debate regarding the "process as punishment" within the Indian criminal justice system. When cases under stringent laws like the UAPA involve a large number of co-accused, the procedural bottleneck—where hearings are repeatedly adjourned before the trial even begins—becomes the primary hurdle for the judiciary.

By filing these fresh petitions, Khalid and Imam are testing whether the judicial system can reconcile the gravity of the charges with the constitutional right to a speedy trial. As the court prepares to hear the police response in July, the outcome will likely serve as a litmus test for how courts manage protracted UAPA cases where the trial, despite years of detention, has yet to gain meaningful momentum.