The Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the UAPA case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The court cited a prima facie case against the two under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), according to a report by the Times of India. The decision followed a petition filed by the accused after their bail applications were rejected by the trial court on July 4, 2025.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, argued that there had been 'small changes in circumstances' since the earlier proceedings and referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support his submissions. However, the court noted that charges had not yet been framed in the case, and prosecution witnesses had not been examined. The police, represented by ASG SV Raju and SPP Akhand Pratap Singh, opposed the bail pleas, asserting that Khalid and Imam were 'masterminds' of the riots and part of the 'command authority' as per a Supreme Court order from January 5.

The Delhi Police argued that the accused could not seek bail on parity with other co-accused, given their elevated risk profiles. They also cited the Supreme Court’s January 5 order, which directed that bail could only be granted after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year, whichever came first. The trial court had previously rejected Khalid’s bail application, stating it had 'no option but to follow' the Supreme Court’s directive.

In a separate development, the Supreme Court on January 5 upheld the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail but granted relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. The court also granted six months’ interim bail to Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, while referring the issue of prolonged incarceration under UAPA to a larger bench.

The Delhi High Court bench, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, observed that the accused had not met the conditions for bail as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that it could not modify the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court, which included the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever came first.

The case remains ongoing, with the trial court indicating it would await the Supreme Court’s order before proceeding. The exact nature of the charges, the status of the prosecution witnesses, and the full context of the alleged conspiracy remain unclear in the available records.