The student activist has sought interim bail from December 14 to 29. His sister's marriage is scheduled on December 27
NEW DELHI — Student activist and former researcher at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Umar Khalid has applied for a 16-day interim bail from December 14 to 29 to attend his sister’s wedding scheduled to be solemnised on December 27. The plea was moved on Tuesday.
Khalid is incarcerated in Delhi’s Tihar jail for over five years for his alleged role in the larger conspiracy case behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The riots killed and injured scores of people, mostly Muslims.
Khalid has been charge-sheeted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, along with other accused persons. Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and others are also named accused in this case.
Umar Khalid’s application is scheduled to be heard on December 11 by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts, media reports said.
This is not Umar Khalid’s first bid for temporary release. Last December, he was granted seven days’ interim bail to attend a family wedding; in 2022, he received a similar one-week bail for his sister’s marriage ceremony.
However, all his regular bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected. In October 2022, the Delhi High Court denied him bail. A subsequent plea to the Supreme Court was withdrawn.
His second regular bail attempt at the trial court was dismissed; a division bench of the Delhi High Court in September 2025 described his alleged role in the case as “grave,” citing accusations that his speeches were meant to “instigate mass mobilisation” on communal lines. His current plea was pending before the Supreme Court.
The student activist charges under FIR-59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell under several IPC provisions and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The 2020 violence in North-East Delhi followed inflammatory speeches by some leaders of the ruling party, and have widely been described by observers as an anti-Muslim pogrom.
Rights groups and critics have argued that rather than prosecuting those who incited and organised the violence, the state has used the case to target activists and students with dissenting views, many of whom were part of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Supporters of Khalid, including many rights activists and groups, opposition leaders contend that the UAPA charges and repeated denial of bail reflect a broader campaign to criminalise dissent and stifle opposition.
They argue that granting him interim bail for a family event is a modest request given the prolonged nature of the trial.
As the hearing date approaches, civil-liberties organisations and legal observers are watching closely to see whether the court will grant temporary release, and what that decision might indicate about judicial willingness to balance criminal justice against fundamental rights.
