The top court said that it has not found “any good ground and reason to review the judgment dated 05.01.2026.”
File photo of activist Umar Khalid being escorted by police. (ANI)
The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a petition filed by activist Umar Khalid, seeking to review its January 5 order, which denied him and co-accused Sharjeel Imam bail in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had earlier this year denied bail to Khalid and another co-accused, Sharjeel Imam, in the case.
Advertisement
The bench had observed that the materials submitted before the court show a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Advertisement
The court had also directed Khalid and Imam not to file further applications until the examination of protected witnesses is completed or one year from January 5.
“Prayer for oral hearing in the review petition is rejected. Delay condoned. Having gone through the review petition and also the documents enclosed, we do not find any good ground or reason to review the judgment dated 05.01.2026. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed,” the court said in its April 16 order that was updated today.
What SC said in its January 5 order denying bail to Khalid and Imam
The Supreme Court, while delivering its order dated January 5, 2026, had noted that the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stands on a “qualitatively different footing”, both in terms of prosecution and evidence.
The apex court underscored that the two student activists played roles “central” to the alleged offences.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale said that while the period of incarceration is continued and has been long for the two, it, however, does not violate the constitutional mandate or override the statutory embargo under the law.
While denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Supreme Court, however, allowed the duo to apply for bail afresh in the trial court, once the examination of all prosecution witnesses in the matter is completed or in any case after one year’s time.
Advertisement
