'If the trial is not going on, if the charges have not been framed, it is obvious that he must be given bail. But he has been denied again.'
When the Supreme Court refused bail to Dr Umar Khalid on Monday, January 5, 2026, the disappointment at his family home was immediate and deep.
"It is very disappointing. It is sheer injustice," says his father S Q R Ilyas, reacting to the Supreme Court order.
"There is no single evidence against him. I don't know what was the reason why he has not been granted bail."
The Supreme Court, while declining bail to Dr Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, allowed them the liberty to apply again after one year. The court cited the seriousness of allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and said it was not inclined to interfere at this stage.
For Dr Umar Khalid's father, even the condition attached to the denial felt arbitrary. "That is also a condition. I don't know why this condition," he said.
Five And A Half Years Without Trial
Dr Umar Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, in connection with the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 north east Delhi riots, which left over 53 people dead. He has now spent nearly five-and-a-half years in jail, with charges yet to be framed in the main case.
"Actually he must get bail," Ilyas said. "Once the trial is not going on, the charges have not been framed even after five years, then at least he must be given bail."
He pointed to repeated judicial observations made over the years that prolonged incarceration without trial violates personal liberty.
"There is clear proof of this," he said. "If the trial is not going on, if the charges have not been framed, it is obvious that he must be given bail. But he has been denied again."
'Bail Is the Exception Now'
Indian courts have repeatedly held that bail is the rule and jail the exception. For Dr Umar Khalid's family, that principle appears to have been turned upside down.
"This is just reverse," his father said. "Jail is the rule. Bail is an exception."
The Supreme Court, in its January 5 order, noted that it was not commenting on the merits of the case, but maintained that the threshold for bail under UAPA is high. Similar reasoning has been cited earlier by lower courts and the Delhi high court while rejecting Dr Umar Khalid's bail pleas.
A Brief Taste Of Normal Life
Ilyas said he did not speak to his son after the Supreme Court order.
The last time the family spent time together was when Dr Umar Khalid was granted interim bail for a short period to attend his sister's wedding.
"He was here on interim bail to attend his sister's marriage," Ilyas said. "So we talked a lot. He was also hopeful that this time he may get the bail."
Those days, he recalled, passed in a blur.
"We were very busy with the wedding ceremony. So many relatives and friends were coming and meeting him," he said. "He had a very busy schedule when he was out (of jail
Asked whether Umar was happy during that brief release, the answer was immediate.
"Definitely. He was very happy that he is at least out for some time."
'It Was Normal Life, For Some Days'
For the family, those days offered a glimpse into what had been missing for years.
"We were all happy," Ilyas said. "At least he was out. Earlier we were talking only on the phone."
"It was very nice that he is out. We are meeting him, touching him, embracing him," he said. "It was normal life. Normal life -- at least for seven days."
Dr Umar Khalid ate home food, met relatives and friends, and used a mobile phone freely -- small freedoms denied in prison.
"But now again he has been put in jail," his father said.
'There Was No Single Evidence Against Him'
Despite the years behind bars, Ilyas said his son appeared emotionally steady.
"He was normal. Emotionally and psychologically he was normal," he said. "And he was very much hopeful that this time definitely he may get bail."
That hope, he said, came from the way the case was argued in court.
"The way the arguments took place in the Supreme Court, there was no single evidence against him," he said.
He criticised the prosecution's characterisation of the case.
"They were saying 'white collar terrorism' and 'intellectual terrorism'," he said. "This is type of labelling. That's all. Nothing concrete proof was put."
"If there was proof," he added, "the case would have gone to trial."
'This Is Not About Delhi Riots'
Asked what he wants the country to understand about his son, Ilyas was direct.
"Basically my son has challenged the government on the discriminatory law that is the Citizenship (Amendment) Act," he said. "That is the punishment given to him."
He rejected the allegation that Dr Umar Khalid was present during the violence.
"It is not regarding the Delhi riots," he said. "He was not present during the riots. He was in Bihar."
He also pointed out that Dr Umar Khalid's speeches -- which form part of the prosecution case -- were played in court.
"The entire speech was shown in the Supreme Court," he said.
For Ilyas, the case is no longer just about legal arguments. It is about a son who has spent half a decade in prison without trial -- and a father who believes that dissent, not evidence, lies at the heart of the charge.
© 2026