AS THE DELHI POLICE concluded its arguments on December 10, 2025, the Division Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar and comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria reserved the orders in the bail applications of the accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy case.
Responding to the arguments raised by the Petitioners in their rejoinders, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju doubled down on the accusations of a larger conspiracy. He told the Court that apart from being a distinct offence in itself, the law on conspiracy postulates that the acts committed by one can be attributed to all co-conspirators. Therefore, all the co-accused are liable for the acts committed by Sharjeel Imam.
ASG Raju: Petitioners have been refusing to argue on framing of charges
Addressing the argument on delay, Raju claimed that the Petitioners have been refusing to argue on the framing of charges. He told the Court that even though the charge-sheets were filed separately for different Petitioners, once they are filed and the offence is made out, the Petitioners will have to present their arguments on the framing of the charges.
Justice Kumar pointed out that the grievance of the accused is that the charge-sheets naming them were filed intermittently, due to which they were unable to argue on charge unless they were named in a charge-sheet. For this reason, Justice Kumar explained, the delay could not be attributed to them.
However, the Additional Solicitor General insisted that the case of the Petitioners was that they would not argue on charge unless all the evidence had been placed on record. He contended that the trial court would not have taken cognizance of the chargesheet if it was unable to proceed with the case.
“The other evidence may or may not come,” Raju told the Court, “if it comes, the charge can be modified, but they will have to argue as and when chargesheets have been filed, and the court takes the cognizance.” He argued that the filing of the additional chargesheets had nothing to do with the delay.
Citing a precedent of the Supreme Court on Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Raju argued that additional documents cannot be considered at the stage of the framing of the charge, and the same will have to be done based solely on the evidence placed on record in the charge-sheet.
Differentiating the Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy case from the one being cited by Raju, Justice Kumar clarified that the question in the latter was whether the trial court can consider the material filed by the accused at the stage of the framing of the charge. He remarked that the Petitioners are not placing anything on record, but are rather asking the Delhi Police to put all the material on record.
“That material may never come”, Raju replied.
“Then you say so”, Justice Kumar told Raju.
“That is not relevant for the purpose of discharge”, Raju submitted as Justice Kumar reiterated that the case of the Petitioners is that the learned judge should have said so.
Further, the Additional Solicitor General cited material from the charge-sheet to rebuke the argument that there was no conspiracy. He pointed out that photographic evidence shows that Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and Yogendra Yadav were present in the conspiratorial meetings for mob mobilisation. He further argued that this is corroborated by the CDR location of Imam and Khalid.
ASG Raju: Umar Khalid was active on the ground during the hatching of the conspiracy
“FIR 55 of 2020 is from 2019; what has that got to do with anything? How are you linking that?” Justice Kumar asked.
“This was the planning stage. The conspiracy always takes place before the incident. You can plan one or two years in advance, before the actual act”, Raju submitted.
He further argued that Call Data Records data, corroborated with witness statements, showed that Khalid was present in Jamia Nagar when the first phase of the violence broke out there.
“Is there a separate FIR? Was Umar Khalid an accused there?” Justice Kumar asked.
“There is an FIR, but Umar Khalid is not named there”, Raju replied, while clarifying that he is citing the evidence to show Khalid was physically present on the ground, contrary to his submissions that he was not there. He told the Court that Khalid was also detained for violating the curfew orders and Section 144 (unlawful assembly) orders.
He then cited other material, including statements from protected witnesses, a WhatsApp chat, and a photograph, to argue that the Petitioners, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, were the masterminds behind the conspiracy. They, along with Khalid Saifi, Nadeem Khan, Gulfisha, Tasleem Ahmed, and others, were present at the meeting where the conspiracy to mobilise the mob through groups such as the Jamia Coordination Committee , the Jamia Awareness Campaigning Team, and the Delhi Protect Support Group, and to spread violence was hatched.
Raju argued that the statements from the protected witnesses establish that the plan was to coincide the protests with the visit of the then US President Donald Trump, and that giving peaceful speeches from the stage was part of the conspiracy, as the real directions followed afterwards.
ASG Raju: Sharjeel Imam’s discharge not proof of his innocence, Gulfisha actively involved in conspiracy
While addressing the argument that a court has already discharged Sharjeel Imam in a case connected to the 2020 riots, Raju noted that “the discharge is not on merits”. He argued that the discharge was not proof of Imam’s innocence, but was rather granted because of the overlap between that case and the matter already under consideration as part of the larger conspiracy in the present case.
Raju also opposed Gulfisha’s bail plea, arguing that the statements of the protected witnesses show that she was actively involved in the conspiracy and was responsible for distributing chilli powder and acid to rioters. He told the Court that the SFL report shows that acid was used.
Justice Aravind Kumar: How could mere speech fall under definition of ‘terrorist act’?
“What do you say about Section 15 of the [Unlawful Activities Prevention] Act?”, Justice Kumar asked while questioning how a mere speech would fall under the definition of a “terrorist act” as defined under the provision.
“It is not just the speech, but a speech followed by action, due to which fifty three persons were killed”, Raju replied.
“What action? How are you linking that to this?” Justice Kumar probed, as he pointed out the contentions of the Petitioners that it is only a speech.
Raju argued that violent protests broke out four weeks after the speech, which provides an insight into their planning. He also reiterated the argument on conspiratorial meetings where the chakka jams were decided.
Justice Kumar, however, interjected that the speech and the conspiracy would fall under the purview of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act at best, as argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave. “You are not attributing the use of objects such as bombs, etc, (as defined under Section 15) to these persons”, Justice Kumar remarked as he pressed the Additional Solicitor General for an answer.
Raju responded that the provisions of Section 15 include economic security, which was aimed to be affected through the chakka jam. “That is how they are covered”, Raju told the Court, arguing that the conspiracy and preparation are also covered under Section 18, which provides for a punishment of up to life imprisonment.
Court directs preparation of a single convenience compilation
Concluding his arguments, Raju told the Court that he is not arguing the substantive offence, and is limiting his arguments to the conspiracy, which was to use the objects defined under Section 15 of the Act.
The Bench, while expressing difficulty in perusing the documents due to their multiplicity, directed the advocates appearing on both sides to collect and collate the documents and prepare a single convenience compilation to assist the Court with ready reference while dictating the order. It was directed that the exercise shall be concluded on or before December 18, and the judgment will be pronounced post vacation. The Court also directed the appointment of nodal counsels for both sides to undertake the task.