On August 27, 2026, nearly six years after Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were arrested, the Delhi High Court will hear their bail appeals. Both men are accused of conspiring to orchestrate and mastermind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has not yet resolved how Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) should be applied when accused persons have already spent more than half a decade in custody without a trial.
The proceedings haven’t even begun, and the case is still at the stage of arguments on the framing of charges. The Supreme Court, as of now, has accepted prima facie that both men seem to have played a role in the alleged conspiracy, while maintaining that its observations at the bail stage don’t amount to findings of guilt.
So, what exactly can the Delhi High Court decide on August 27?
Why are Khalid and Imam still in jail?
Khalid and Imam are among the accused in FIR 59 of 2020, which alleges a larger conspiracy behind the riots. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, while Khalid was arrested later that year. The prosecution has alleged that the two had planned and mobilised the alleged conspiracy.
Their first major Supreme Court bail battle ended on January 5, 2026. In Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case but rejected bail for Khalid and Imam. The court said the prosecution had placed the two on a ‘qualitatively different footing’ by alleging that they were responsible for strategically directing the riots.
In Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case but rejected bail for Khalid and Imam.
However, the Supreme Court’s observations weren’t findings of guilt. It was deciding only whether the legal threshold for bail under the UAPA had been met at that stage. The court also said the two could renew their bail pleas after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the judgement, whichever came first.
What happened to their latest bail pleas?
In keeping with the ruling, Khalid and Imam returned to the trial court seeking bail in July. They cited their prolonged incarceration and the lack of meaningful progress in the trial.
On July 4, 2026, the Karkardooma court rejected both their applications, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January order and could not entertain the pleas before the conditions set out by the apex court were met. The proceedings, even at this point, remained at the stage of arguments on framing charges.
Thus, at the upcoming hearing, the High Court will not only consider their pleas against the latest denial of bail but also their prolonged detention.
Both men then approached the Delhi High Court on July 31, 2026. There, a Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan tagged Khalid’s appeal with Imam’s and scheduled the petition for hearing on August 27, 2026. The High Court also sought the Delhi Police’s response to Khalid’s separate plea for interim bail.
Thus, at the upcoming hearing, the High Court will not only consider their pleas against the latest denial of bail but also their prolonged detention.
UAPA section 43-D(5) and Article 21
The UAPA contains a special restriction on bail under Section 43-D(5). The provision states that a court should not grant bail to an accused if, after examining the case diary or police report, it finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations levied against the accused are prima facie true. Which is to say that, at this stage, the court finds reasonable grounds to support the accusation. However, this is not the same as a finding of guilt after a trial.
The provision makes it much tougher to secure bail than in ordinary criminal cases. But can that restriction continue to justify incarceration indefinitely when the trial itself is taking years to begin? That is where Article 21 of the Constitution comes into play.
The court said the ‘rigours’ of special bail provisions can be relaxed where there is little likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and an accused has already spent a substantial period in custody.
Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has also recognised the right to a speedy trial as part of that protection. In its 2021 judgement in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions such as Section 43-D(5) don’t entirely take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and delays in trial result in a violation of Article 21.
The court said the ‘rigours’ of special bail provisions can be relaxed where there is little likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and an accused has already spent a substantial period in custody. However, the law remains unsettled on this question.
Why is there a Supreme Court dispute?
The January 5 judgement in Khalid and Imam’s case narrowed the scope of their Article 21 argument, holding that the allegations against them met the UAPA’s threshold for denying bail. Then came Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency on May 18. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the UAPA’s Section 43-D(5) is subject to Article 21. It also held that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is a constitutional principle that applies even in UAPA cases.
Days later, on May 22, another Supreme Court Bench referred questions concerning the interaction between Section 43-D(5), prolonged incarceration, and Article 21 to a larger Bench. That Bench granted six months’ interim bail to two co-accused in the Delhi riots case, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, and clarified that they should not be incarcerated merely because an important legal question had not yet been authoritatively determined.
The larger Bench, however, is yet to settle that question.
Why the August 27 hearing matters
For Khalid and Imam, the question now is what happens when the aforementioned threshold is applied to people who have spent years in custody while the trial has yet to begin.
The August 27 hearing, therefore, raises two competing considerations: the UAPA’s stringent restrictions on bail in cases involving allegations of terrorism and conspiracy, and the constitutional protection against indefinite pretrial incarceration.
The Delhi High Court’s answer could be a deciding factor in how courts handle prolonged detention under the UAPA while the Supreme Court works towards a final resolution.
About the author(s)
Sohini (they/she) hails from Calcutta and loves to explore and write about all things society, culture, gender. With a background in journalism and English literature - they have finally been able to make having heartfelt conversations a huge part of their life outside of boxes.
