The Police opposed the bail applications filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam as well as others in the ongoing Delhi riots case. The police stated that the accused were responsible for delays in the trial by consistently using procedural tactics to hinder the pace of the proceedings, thereby prolonging the trial.Background of the Case The two-month long Delhi riots, which began in February 2020, killed hundreds and injured many more, with widespread communal violence and property damage. Ex-JNU student leader Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, for his inflammatory speeches, were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other charges for conspiring or inciting the riots. Khalid and Imam have both dismissed the charges. They claimed to have been wrongfully implicated on account of their disagreement with the policies of the government. Their legal team filed for bail, alleging that detention without a trial for so long is against their fundamental rights. Police Stand on Bail The Delhi Police opposed the bail applications with the argument that rioters were playing a significant role in the planning and executing of riots. According to the police, proof such as call records, social media messages, and testimony by the witnesses pointed to a well-planned conspiracy in inciting the violence. The police further contended before the court of law that at this stage, offering bail might hamper the trial itself. They further quoted the defense, which had accused it of resorting to dilatory tactics by filing repetitively and futile applications, further protracting the process of justice. Important Defence Arguments No Direct Evidence It argued that direct evidence did not associate the criminal with the horrific crime. They stated, however, that charging them assumed something and unsupported statements. Right to Speedy Trial The litigants filed their case for long stay at jail and insisted it violated rights for speedy trials provided in constitution. Health and Humanitarian Grounds: In the application, the applicants had based their case on health grounds that had deteriorated to the extent that preparation was necessary for a fair trial outside of custody. Judgment Reserved and Decision Pending To the court, "there has to be an appropriate balance in the rights of the accused persons and the interest of justice"-because this is a complicated case involving many accused persons and thus requires a large volume of evidence. Importance of the Case This case has generated a lot of interest because it throws up important issues regarding free speech, dissent, and the application of stringent laws such as UAPA. The ultimate decision regarding granting bail will have critical legal and political fallouts that could go on to shape the discussion about the balance between national security and individual liberties. The court is likely to pronounce its decision on the bail applications, and the two sides are closely watching it because it may shape the larger narrative of the Delhi riots investigation.