Sunday, July 13, 2025
HomeNews ReportsDelhi HC rejects bail plea of Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots case,...

Delhi HC rejects bail plea of Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots case, says appeal has no merit

"We don't find any merit in bail appeal, appeal is dismissed," the bench led by Justice Siddharth Mirdul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail plea of so-called activist and former JNU student Umar Khalid in connection with a case pertaining to the bigger conspiracy in the 2020 Delhi riots, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

“We don’t find any merit in bail appeal, appeal is dismissed,” the bench led by Justice Siddharth Mirdul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.

The division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mirdul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar had reserved their decision on Khalid’s bail application on September 9. Khalid had moved to the Delhi HC after he was denied bail by the trial court on March 24. He was arrested on September 13, 2020, and has been in the custody since then.

Umar Khalid had challenged the lower court’s order rejecting his bail application on the grounds that there is no evidence linking him to the violence that erupted in Delhi during the riots.

The High Court on September 9, reserved its judgment on Khalid’s appeal after the completion of the arguments put forth by both parties.

The FIR filed against Khalid includes serious allegations such as Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act of 1984. He is also charged with a number of offences listed in the Indian Penal Code of 1860.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appearing for Delhi Police said that Khalid is one of the brains behind the riots and that he acted as a silent whisperer. He also presented Khalid’s Amravati address, proving that it was a premeditated speech in which the focus was not only CAA NRC but other alleged problems directly relevant to the Islamist community such as Triple Talaq and the Babri Masjid, among others. He said that Khalid was involved in managing the protest to sow dissatisfaction among the minorities.

Umar Khalid was booked under UAPA

The Delhi Police apprehended Umar Khalid on September 13, 2020, and charged him on November 22, 2020, under several provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code. In July 2021, Khalid filed a bail application.

It may be noted that Khalid’s bail plea has been rejected thrice since his arrest in September 2020. Most recently, the Delhi Court had refused bail to so-called activist and former JNU student Umar Khalid on 24th March in connection with a case pertaining to the bigger conspiracy in the 2020 Delhi riots, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). The order was issued today by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat.

Join OpIndia's official WhatsApp channel

  Support Us  

For likes of 'The Wire' who consider 'nationalism' a bad word, there is never paucity of funds. They have a well-oiled international ecosystem that keeps their business running. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

OpIndia Staff
OpIndia Staffhttps://www.opindia.com
Staff reporter at OpIndia

Related Articles

Trending now

Who is Sadanandan Master, the newly nominated Rajya Sabha MP whose legs were chopped off by CPIM goons

On the night of 25th January, 1994, Sadanandan Master was ambushed by CPI(M) goons near his home village of Perinchery. They chopped off both his legs and left him bleeding on the roadside as a warning to those switching political sides.

‘Advisory, not mandatory’: Air India responds to FAA bulletin on fuel switch, says all directives complied with

Air India informed investigators that while it was in full compliance with all mandatory airworthiness directives and service bulletins for the aircraft, it had not conducted inspections suggested in the 2018 SAIB since they were advisory, and not mandatory.
- Advertisement -