On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court once again denied bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and the seven others involved in the case. However, a compelling narrative, widely echoed in certain sections of the media and activist circles, claims that the indefinite incarceration of these accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case is a “travesty of justice”, marked by a “sluggish judicial process” that has denied them bail unfairly.
Nonetheless, a detailed examination of court orders and the chronology of proceedings reveal a starkly different reality: the significant delay in commencing the trial was a calculated strategy employed by the accused themselves, particularly those out on bail, who then turned around to use this self-created delay as a ground for seeking liberty.
This strategy has now been explicitly called out and dismantled by the courts in a series of orders, the most recent being a judgement from the Delhi High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case, which lays bare the tactics used to protract proceedings.
The High Court’s Damning Indictment: Paras 22, 23, and 38
The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgement, left no room for ambiguity. The order sheets of the trial court, upon a bare perusal, clearly indict the defence counsel for the accused.
In Para 22, the Court states, “A bare perusal of the order sheets clearly indicate that the learned Counsel for the accused have taken many adjournments during the course of arguments on charge. The order-sheets show that the learned Counsel for the accused were not ready to argue the matter on charge, thereby protracting the proceedings. The facts and order sheets reveal that the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial at various points in time. The inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant herein is not due to the inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court.”
Para 23 absolves the trial court of any blame, highlighting its efforts to ensure a speedy and structured process – “Material on record shows that at no point of time, the learned Trial Court has or has unnecessarily delayed the arguments on charge. In fact, to facilitate the proceedings properly and in a speedy manner, the learned Trial Court has ensured that the proceedings take place in a structured manner, wherein liberty was given to the accused persons to come to a consensus as to who will argue the case sequentially.”
Perhaps the most revealing observation comes from Para 38, which describes a clear dichotomy between accused who are in prison and those on bail, and a conspiracy of delay: “Material on record indicates that certain accused persons have got bail and some of the accused persons are in prison. Those accused persons who got bail are trying to delay the arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The arguments on charge are being delayed by the accused persons who are out on bail at the cost of those accused persons who are in prison. Despite orders from the Court directing the Counsels for the accused persons to decide amongst themselves as to how and in what order the arguments on charge will be advanced by the accused, there seems to be no consensus among them.”
The court rejected the argument from Umar Khalid’s counsel, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, that they were merely “waiting in queue patiently,” noting that the accused did not advance arguments despite the court’s requests.
The Umar Khalid Bail Saga: A Timeline of Self-Inflicted Delay
The chronology of Umar Khalid’s bail petitions further cements the pattern of deliberate delay:
October 2022: The Delhi High Court denies Khalid bail, finding a prima facie true case against him.
December 2022: Khalid secures a one-week interim bail to attend his sister’s wedding.
April 2023: Instead of immediately appealing the High Court’s order, Khalid waits for four months after his interim bail ends to finally file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court – a full six months after the High Court’s rejection.
The Supreme Court Adjournments: Between April 2023 and February 2024, Khalid’s SLP was listed 14 times. An analysis shows that his own legal team, led by Kapil Sibal, sought adjournments in seven of those 14 hearings. This period was also marked by alleged attempts at “forum shopping,” with lawyers like Prashant Bhushan writing to the Chief Justice to have the case moved to a different bench.
February 2024: Kapil Sibal abruptly withdraws Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court, citing “changed circumstances,” and stated he would “try his luck” back in the trial court. This withdrawal coincided with a crucial January 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra that reinforced the strict standards for granting bail under UAPA, making Khalid’s chances in the top court exceedingly slim.
Even former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud endorses this.
Former CJI DY Chandrachud confirms what I had written about Umar Khalid’s bail application in SC. I had written that 7 times, it was Khalid who sought adjournment, ultimately withdrawing application. The cabal later played victim.
Here’s my story https://t.co/ui4YyovyuO pic.twitter.com/eOlWpar5ac
— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) February 14, 2025
The 2023 Conspiracy to Delay Charge Hearing
The most blatant example of coordinated delay occurred in September 2023. The trial court had fixed dates for day-to-day hearings on arguments for framing charges – the crucial step needed to finally begin the trial.
However, just as the prosecution was set to begin, several accused who were already out on bail, including Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, filed applications demanding a complete status report on the investigation before the arguments could start. They argued, speculatively, that the prosecution might file more supplementary chargesheets to “cover up” gaps.
This application, with no firm legal footing, was swiftly adopted by other accused out on bail, including Meeran Haider, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and others. The Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, vehemently opposed this, arguing it was a “frivolous application” filed deliberately to “disrupt the entire proceeding” on the very day hearings were to begin. He noted they had waited 40 days to raise this non-issue.
Significantly, at the same time, Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain (both in jail) were insisting the hearings should begin. This raised a critical question: why were those out on bail working to delay a trial that those still incarcerated were desperate to expedite? The Sessions Court, in its May 2024 order denying Khalid bail, answered this implicitly, noting that the delay was caused by the accused, not the prosecution.
The Legal Conclusion: Delay Cannot be a Self-Created Ground for Bail
The courts have consistently shut down the argument that delay is a valid ground for bail when the accused are the architects of that delay. The High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case emphatically concluded in Para 28: “it must be emphasised that in the facts of this case, majority delay is attributable to the accused and not the inability on the part of the prosecution to speed up proceedings”.
Further, in Para 39, the court warned against the tactic of deliberately delaying a trial only to then use that delay to demand bail: “The provision..”can easily be circumvented by delaying trial on one hand and pressing bail applications on the other”.
The evidence from the court records presents an undeniable picture: the much-lamented “delay” in the Delhi riots conspiracy trial was not a failure of the system but a deliberate strategy employed by the defence. The courts have not only seen through this strategy but have also unequivocally recorded it in their orders, debunking the popular media narrative that the accused are merely victims of a protracted judicial process.
This article is based on an X thread by Nupur J Sharma.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.