The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the response of Delhi Police on activist Umar Khalid's fresh bail plea in the alleged 'larger conspiracy' case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice to the city police and directed it to file its reply within two weeks.
Appearing for Khalid, his counsel said this was the activist's third bail application since his arrest and also sought interim bail.
The bench posted the matter for hearing on August 27, when the bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam is also scheduled to be heard.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing Delhi Police, said Imam's bail plea had also been rejected by the same trial court order and requested that both matters be heard together.
Khalid has challenged a July 4 trial court order rejecting his bail application. The trial court had said it had "no option but to follow" the Supreme Court's January 5 order and, therefore, could neither entertain the plea nor grant him the relief.
Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations that he was one of the masterminds behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence broke out during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The Delhi Police Special Cell is investigating the alleged larger conspiracy case, in which Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been named as accused.
On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Khalid. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on January 5, while granting bail to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had observed that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.
(With inputs from PTI)