NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai rejected their bail applications after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence.Khalid and Imam sought bail, arguing that their continued incarceration without the commencement of the trial violated their fundamental right to personal liberty.Khalid’s plea further contended that although the Supreme Court had earlier rejected his bail application, subsequent judicial developments amounted to a “change in circumstances”. He cited the court’s observations made in May in another case, asserting that “bail is the rule” even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The fresh pleas were filed after the apex court, on January 5, denied them bail in the case registered under the UAPA.In his application, Imam said there was no “significant development” in the proceedings even six months after the Supreme Court denied him bail and that he is in custody for nearly six years.The plea pointed out that charges have yet to be framed in the case despite the accused having spent years in custody.Similarly, Khalid, in his bail application, cited his prolonged incarceration and the delay in the trial, arguing that he has spent nearly six years in custody without charges being framed.The plea also referred to the apex court’s observations in its May 18 order in a terror-related case. While granting bail to the accused, a two-judge bench criticised its January 5 verdict and emphasised that anti-terror laws should not be used as a tool for indefinite detention.Khalid argued that subsequent judicial developments constituted a “change in circumstances”, making the present bail plea maintainable despite the rejection of his earlier application by the apex court.The application also relied on several Supreme Court judgments on prolonged incarceration, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves versus State of Maharashtra, to argue that the statutory restrictions on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot override constitutional protections when a trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.On January 5, the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and Imam in the larger-conspiracy case, while granting the relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had then observed that there was a prima-facie case against Khalid and Imam under the UAPA and held that all accused could not be treated equally in view of the “hierarchy of participation”.Khalid, Imam and several others have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.The violence, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured.(With agency inputs)