2020 Riots Case: Delhi High Court Grants Umar Khalid 3-Day Interim Bail For Mother’s Surgery

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted former JNU student leader Umar Khalid a three-day interim bail in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, allowing him to visit his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery.

The interim bail has been granted from June 1 to June 3, offering Khalid temporary relief after his earlier plea seeking bail on medical grounds was rejected by a lower court.

Relief After Lower Court Rejection

The development comes days after the Karkardooma Court on May 19 denied Khalid’s interim bail application. Khalid had sought temporary release to attend to his mother during her medical treatment.

Rejecting the plea, the trial court observed that the grounds presented by Khalid were “neither adequate nor convincing” and did not justify granting interim bail. The court noted that the circumstances outlined in the application failed to meet the threshold required for temporary relief.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Bail Denial

The High Court’s decision also comes amid broader judicial scrutiny surrounding bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

On May 18, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over its earlier verdict denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The apex court observed that the earlier ruling may not have properly applied established legal principles related to prolonged incarceration under the stringent anti-terror law.

‘Bail Is the Rule, Jail the Exception’

Reaffirming the importance of personal liberty, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” even in cases registered under the UAPA.

A bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who had been in custody for more than five years in a UAPA case linked to alleged narco-terrorism.

The court’s remarks have reignited debate over prolonged detention and the application of bail principles in cases involving stringent national security laws.