New Delhi: A day after the Supreme Court critiqued its own order refusing bail to former JNU student Umar Khalid, a Delhi court has denied him interim bail for taking care of his mother after a surgery and attending post-death rituals of uncle, saying the reasons did not seem “just”.
In his four-page order Tuesday, Karkardooma court Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai concluded that Khalid’s mother could be cared for by his sisters and father as well, while his late uncle was not a close relative.
Khalid had approached the court, seeking 15-day interim bail to tend to his ailing mother who had undergone a surgery and to attend the 40-day post-death ritual called Chehlum for his late uncle, who passed away a month ago.
“Attending the Chehlum ceremony of his uncle is not that necessary. The things would have been different if the ceremony was of a person who was in immediate relation with the applicant,” the court ruled in its 19-May order.
As far as the surgery of the mother is concerned, the court noted that the applicant has himself said that he has five sisters. And even though they do not live nearby, they could definitely be expected to come help their mother, said the court.
It said Umar’s mother’s surgery was actually a very simple one, and concerned only the removal of lumps. There seems to be no actual requirement or help from Khalid’s side in this case, the court concluded.
Also Read: Indian judiciary is letting citizens down. When liberty is in danger, judges are looking away
What lawyers say
The Karkardooma court’s order came just a day after a two-judge Supreme Court bench voiced its reservation over a coordinate bench’s refusal in January 2026 to grant bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are facing charges under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi riots case.
“…we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case,” the SC bench observed on Monday.
Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir said on Wednesday, “Interim bail is granted always on the basis of exigency. If the judge doesn’t see any exigency or urgent, compelling circumstances in the case, they are entitled to not give bail”.
Pointing out that it’s been five years since Khalid has been given proper bail, Delhi-based criminal lawyer Sahil Yadav said, “The court’s reasoning was that the uncle was not a close relative so medical bail could not be given.”
“It is given under extraneous circumstances. For many undertrials, incarceration is the punishment. After five years, the prosecution’s case has not been tested at all, and the trial is being delayed intentionally by them to break the mind and spirit of the undertrial prisoners. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Advocate Mayank Singh Punia told ThePrint that there is a general trend that trial courts deny bail when there is an order of the higher court denying bail to the accused.
“In Umar Khalid’s case, his bail has been denied by the Supreme Court with the observation that he can renew his bail application within a period of one year from the date of the said order. Faced with this order, candidly speaking, interim bail from the trial court was an unlikely scenario”.
If the accused or, Umar Khalid in this case, is aggrieved, he is entitled to invoke his remedies to challenge that order by filing a curative petition, he added.
Umar’s plea
Khalid had sought interim or temporary bail on the two major grounds: his mother’s surgery and his uncle’s Chehlum ceremony on 24 May.
Although he accepted that his father and sisters are there in the family, he said that the father is 71, and unable to look after her properly, and the sisters reside away from the parental home in different locations.
Umar being the only son, and also the eldest sibling, told the court that only he could care for the mother before and after the surgery.
To strengthen his case, Umar said he was earlier granted bail in 2022 (eight days), 2024 (14 days) and also last year in December, and he always surrendered in time, and abided by all bail conditions.
But the Delhi Police opposed his request, saying Umar was just misusing the court’s leniency. It said he was granted bail on earlier occasions and those seemed reasonable.
But the mother’s surgery is a minor one, they said.
After hearing these arguments, the court said that other co-accused were also granted bail on different occasions and did not flout bail conditions but that in itself cannot be a ground to allow someone bail.
“The court has to consider every fresh application on its own merits and should allow the same only when the grounds are reasonable,” the court said.
“If the relation was so immediate and thick, the applicant would have asked for the release at the time of death of his uncle and not now after such a long time,” the court said while noting that Umar’s reasons did not seem “just”.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: ‘Judges fear granting bail’—DY Chandrachud takes on Umar Khalid question at JLF