New Delhi
On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven co-accused in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case. The court emphasised that the trial must proceed at its natural pace—rushing it would undermine the rights of both the accused and the State.
Natural pace vs rushed justice
The bench—comprised of Justices Shailender Kaur and Navin Chawla—noted that the case has now moved to the stage of hearing arguments on framing charges, demonstrating forward movement in the trial proceedings. They cautioned that a “hurried trial” would be detrimental to fairness for all involved.
Prima facie gravity of allegations
The court highlighted the serious nature of the allegations. It observed that Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were allegedly key contributors to the alleged conspiracy, accused of organising WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets calling for protests and road blockades in Muslim-majority areas following the CAB’s enactment.
State’s detailed investigation
The bench acknowledged extensive investigative efforts: a chargesheet exceeding 3,000 pages, 30,000 pages of electronic evidence, four supplementary chargesheets, and statements from 58 witnesses—including protected witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC. The court also noted the prosecution’s argument that the violence was a premeditated, well-coordinated conspiracy threatening national unity—posing a delicate burden on the judiciary to balance individual rights and public safety.
Bail delay and discretion
While acknowledging that prolonged pre-trial incarceration raises constitutional concerns under Article 21, the court observed that simply arguing delay does not guarantee bail. The decision hinges on case-specific factors, and the court must exercise discretion carefully.