Delhi HC dismisses petition challenging Ishrat Jahan’s bail in 2020 riots case

Jahan was granted bail by the trial court in March 2022, after which the Delhi Police approached the Delhi High Court in July, challenging the order

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Delhi police’s petition challenging the bail granted to former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan in the February 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

The bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Representative file photo)

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that more than four years had elapsed since bail was granted to Jahan, with no allegations of any violation of the bail conditions. In view of this, the court said that it was not inclined to interfere with the earlier bail order.

Jahan was granted bail by the trial court in March 2022, after which the Delhi Police approached the Delhi High Court in July, challenging the order.

In its petition, the police argued that the trial court had misapplied provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), contending that Section 18 covers not only conspiracy to commit a terrorist act but also attempts to carry one out.

It further claimed that the trial court’s observations regarding Jahan’s role in the riots were factually incorrect.

Northeast Delhi erupted in violence on February 23, 2020, following clashes between two communities over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that left 53 dead and hundreds injured.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots but ordered the release of five other co-accused, holding that continued incarceration of the latter was not indispensable to the conduct of a fair trial at the present stage.

The court had said that, considering the roles attributed to the five accused, including Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Gulfisha Fatima, the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution, and the stage of the proceedings, their liberty could be secured through strict safeguards.

It had underlined that the grant of bail neither diluted the gravity of the allegations nor amounted to any determination of guilt, but reflected a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion balancing individual liberty with the security of the nation.