‘Ruthless’ conspiracy: Delhi Police opposes bail to 2020 riots accused
Northeast Delhi erupted in violence on February 23, 2020, following clashes between Hindus and Muslims over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
The 2020 riots in northeast Delhi were part of a “clinical and pathological” conspiracy, orchestrated by forces hostile to India, and carried out with “ruthless intensity,” the Delhi Police told the Delhi high court on Tuesday.

Opposing bail pleas of student activists Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi, additional solicitor general (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the police, argued that the scale of violence justified denying bail.
“The riots resulted in 53 deaths, including a police officer, and left 540 injured… This is the gamut, severity, spread of the violence,” ASG Sharma said.
Citing Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, he contended before a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur that the riots were a “well-planned” conspiracy.
“It is a case of clinical, pathological mindset planned with diabolical intention and ruthless intensity. Article 21 (of the Constitution) is also available to those injured and those who are no more. Article 21 cannot be seen in isolation. This conspiracy is pathological, clinical, well planned and planned to be executed by forces inimical to India,” Sharma said.
Northeast Delhi erupted in violence on February 23, 2020, following clashes between Hindus and Muslims over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that left 53 dead and hundreds injured.
ASG Sharma highlighted the aftermath, noting that in addition to the deaths and injuries, 929 commercial establishments and 566 homes were damaged, with over ₹20 crore disbursed as relief to victims.
The accused – which include jailed student activist Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid, United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi – have been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), had approached the high court after being denied bail by a lower court.
They argued that they had already spent more than four years in custody and that the trial’s slow pace made prolonged incarceration unjustifiable. They also asserted that they are entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the high court in 2021.
The prosecution, however, countered that parity did not apply, as the Supreme Court, while upholding the bail order for those co-accused, explicitly stated it should not be treated as a precedent.
“That (the bail order) shall not be treated as precedent has been met with judicial edict. The decision (granting bail) cannot be the basis of any nuance of parity,” Sharma added. He also submitted that though the accused had sought bail contending that there was no likelihood for the trial to complete soon, they were themselves delaying the trial.
“The trial is day-to-day from September 2023. The record is speaking for itself,” ASG said.
Mere delay coupled with the grave offences with which the accused have been charged, Sharma submitted, was not ipso facto a governing factor for bail.
Besides seeking bail on the ground of parity and period of incarceration, former JNU student leader Khalid had urged the court to release him on bail that the Delhi Police has yet to recover any physical evidence showing his complicity, while Imam asserted that he was booked by the Delhi Police despite the absence of evidence in the form of text messages or calls with any of the co-accused.
Regarding Khalid’s plea, Sharma contended that his appeal lacked merit, as no new material circumstances had emerged since his previous bail rejection.
“There is law to the effect that a second bail application is justifiable to the extent of factual change of matrix and lack of change in the factual circumstance make this (Khalid’s) appeal a non-starter in law. There cannot be or ought to be a second bite of cherry,” the law officer submitted.
The court will continue hearing the matter on January 8, with the Delhi Police set to make further arguments against the bail applications.

Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News
Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News