The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard bail requests from six people accused of involvement in the alleged planning behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The Court listened to final arguments from the defence side, with the police set to present their response tomorrow.
Those seeking bail include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan. All have been in jail for nearly six years while facing charges linked to an alleged plan to trigger unrest during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Most of them were also booked in several other cases across different states.
Senior lawyers representing the accused argued that none of the six were shown to have taken part in the violence, which left 53 people dead in February 2020. They said the case against them is built mainly on speeches, meetings or online groups, not on any actions during the riots.
Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave pointed out that Imam had already received bail in other cases based on the same speeches. &ldquo;Where I gave the speech, where the FIR is registered, I am already enlarged on bail,&rdquo; he said, insisting that Imam is being prosecuted &ldquo;8&ndash;10 times&rdquo; for the same words. Dave added that Imam was not present at the riot sites and had already been in custody before the violence began. He highlighted that some of the remarks attributed to Imam were &ldquo;unpalatable&rdquo; but had been viewed as non-violent by courts that granted him bail earlier.
Dave also stressed Imam&rsquo;s long jail time. &ldquo;Today he is standing asking for bail after 6 years in custody. He is not physically present or an accused in any of the cases where the riots actually took place,&rdquo; he said.
Other defence lawyers raised similar concerns. Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, denied allegations that Rehman received funding to fuel protests. He said the money was used for basic arrangements at peaceful demonstration sites and argued that supporting non-violent protests is not a crime.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Meeran Haider, said Haider was not even in Delhi on the dates the alleged planning meetings took place and had train tickets to prove he was away due to his mother&rsquo;s illness.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Shadab Ahmed, said phone records showed Ahmed was not present at any of the locations where violence occurred. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no CCTV footage showing me in any active violence,&rdquo; he said.
Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, representing Mohd Saleem Khan, urged the Court to grant bail on the ground that Khan poses no danger to society.
Earlier, the police submitted a lengthy affidavit claiming the accused were part of a plan to trigger nationwide unrest and push for a &ldquo;regime-change operation.&rdquo; They argue that several speeches and online discussions were aimed at inflaming tensions. The accused strongly deny this, saying they only took part in peaceful protests.
The Supreme Court had previously asked the police to explain delays in responding to the bail pleas. With both sides having presented their main arguments, the next round will feature the police&rsquo;s final submissions.
The Court will continue hearing the case on Wednesday.

Top Court Hears Bail Pleas in 2020 Riots Case

Six accused urge Supreme Court for bail, citing long custody and lack of direct riot links

Top Court Hears Bail Pleas in 2020 Riots Case

Six accused urge Supreme Court for bail, citing long custody and lack of direct riot links

December 9, 2025 | 17:32 IST