Khalid has remained in judicial custody for more than five years in connection with the larger conspiracy case linked to the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020. The violence occurred during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The unrest claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured, making it one of the most significant episodes of civil violence in the national capital in recent years.
The Delhi Police arrested 18 individuals in the conspiracy case. Of those, 11 have secured bail, while Khalid continues to remain behind bars under the provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In April 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed Khalid's review petition challenging an earlier verdict that denied him bail. In its order issued on April 16, the bench stated that, after examining the review petition and the accompanying documents, it found no valid reason to reconsider the judgment delivered on January 5, 2026. The court concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe the allegations levelled against him.
However, in a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious reservations about its recent decision denying bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. A bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that "bail is the rule and jail the exception," even in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The bench noted that the earlier judgment appeared to dilute the binding precedent established by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb case. Justice Bhuyan stated that no subsequent bench could "dilute, circumvent or disregard binding precedent." He further remarked that the judges who had denied bail to Khalid failed to properly apply the principle laid down in the K. A. Najeeb ruling, which reaffirmed that liberty must remain the norm and incarceration the exception.
The Delhi court's refusal to grant interim bail ensures that Khalid will remain in custody despite his personal circumstances. At the same time, the Supreme Court's sharp observations have renewed focus on the interpretation of bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and may carry far-reaching implications for other long-pending cases involving extended incarceration without trial.
About The Author
Comment List