Delhi High Court Seeks Police Response on Bail Applications in 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case
The Delhi High Court has formally issued notice to the Delhi Police while hearing the bail pleas of two individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. This legal development marks a significant step in the ongoing judicial proceedings surrounding the communal violence that erupted over six years ago.
Accused Seek Parity with Co-Accused Granted Bail by Supreme Court
Salim Malik and Athar Khan, in their respective bail applications, have strongly claimed parity with other co-accused in the case who have already been granted bail by the Supreme Court of India. Specifically, Malik has pointed to accused individuals Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, while Athar Khan has specifically claimed parity with Mohd Saleem Khan.
Both Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed were among the five individuals who received bail from the Supreme Court on January 5, 2026. This legal strategy of claiming parity represents a common approach in criminal proceedings where defendants argue they should receive similar treatment as others facing comparable charges and circumstances.
Prosecution Allegations and Previous Bail Denials
According to the prosecution's case presented by the Delhi Police Special Cell, Athar Khan and Saleem Khan, along with Salim Malik who is also known as Munna, allegedly destroyed or covered government-installed CCTV cameras. The prosecution contends this was done to enable them to operate without fear of surveillance during the period of unrest.
This latest development comes shortly after a Delhi court denied bail to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Athar Khan, and Salim Malik in the same larger conspiracy case on January 29, 2026. Of the original 18 people arrested in this case nearly six years ago, seven individuals remain incarcerated while eleven have been granted bail at various stages of the legal process.
Supreme Court's Hierarchy Distinction in UAPA Charges
The Supreme Court, while granting bail to five accused and refusing bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, established a significant legal distinction by identifying a hierarchy between what it termed "architects" and "facilitators" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act charges.
The apex court rejected the bail pleas of Imam and Khalid, placing them in the first category of "architects," while categorizing the remaining five who received bail as "facilitators" in the second category. This judicial classification has created important precedent in how UAPA cases are evaluated for bail considerations.
Specific Allegations Against the Accused
According to the Delhi Police Special Cell's charges, Salim Malik attended a meeting with alleged conspirators on February 22, 2020, at Chand Bagh. The prosecution further alleges that he delivered what they describe as "provocative" speeches from the stage at protest sites and was responsible for managing meals and handling financial transactions at these locations.
The individuals who remain in jail in this case include Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Salim Malik, Athar Khan, and Tasleem Ahmed. Those who have been granted bail comprise Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Mohd Saleem Khan, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.
The Larger Conspiracy Theory of the Prosecution
The prosecution's "larger conspiracy" theory in this case alleges the creation of 23 protest sites that operated continuously in what are described as "Muslim majority areas," strategically located close to mosques and main roads. According to police allegations, the 18 accused allegedly planned to "escalate" the protests to a chakka jam (road blockade) "once critical mass is generated" during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to Delhi in 2020.
The Delhi High Court's notice to the Delhi Police represents the next phase in this complex legal battle that has spanned multiple years and involved numerous judicial proceedings at different levels of the Indian judiciary system.
