Umar Khalid’s father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, expressed his initial response on Monday after the Supreme Court refused bail to his son and fellow activist Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case. Speaking to PTI, Ilyas said, “I have no comment to offer. It is very unfortunate. The judgment is there, and I have nothing to say about it.”

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria declined to grant bail, observing that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). While both activists will continue to remain in jail, five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad—were granted bail.

The court clarified that the bail granted to some did not lessen the seriousness of the allegations against them. It imposed 12 conditions for release and warned that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail.

Highlighting differences in culpability, the apex court stated, “All the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation emerging from the prosecution’s case requires the court to examine each application individually. This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam… This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail.”

The case pertains to the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. Delhi Police have argued that the riots were not spontaneous but part of a planned and organised attack.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, contended that his client was arrested on January 28, 2020, before the violence erupted, and that his speeches alone could not constitute criminal conspiracy.

All seven accused in the case have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly acting as “masterminds” behind the riots. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to Khalid and Imam underscores the court’s view that prima facie evidence warrants continued custody at this stage of the proceedings.