Former JNU student Umar Khalid has decided to withdraw his bail plea from the Supreme Court in a case related to the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020. The case, which was lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), accused Khalid of conspiracy. Khalid, who had challenged the Delhi High Court’s rejection of his bail, cited a ‘change in circumstances’ for withdrawing the plea.

Umar Khalid, who was a student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been accused of being involved in the conspiracy behind the Delhi riots that took place in February 2020. The riots, which resulted in the death of several people and caused immense damage to property, had sparked widespread protests and outrage. The case against Khalid was registered under the UAPA, a stringent anti-terror law.

Khalid had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail after the Delhi High Court had rejected his plea. However, he has now decided to withdraw the bail application, citing a change in circumstances. The exact nature of the change in circumstances has not been specified.

The decision to withdraw the bail plea comes as a surprise, as Khalid had been actively seeking his release and challenging the charges against him. His legal team had argued that there was no evidence to support the claim of his involvement in the conspiracy. However, the courts have so far been unconvinced, as evidenced by the rejection of his bail plea by the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi riots, which occurred in the northeastern parts of the city, were marked by communal violence and clashes between protestors supporting and opposing the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The CAA, which aimed to provide citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries, had been met with resistance and protests across the country. The riots, which lasted for several days, resulted in the deaths of over 50 people and left hundreds injured.

Umar Khalid’s involvement in the protests against the CAA and his alleged role in the conspiracy behind the riots have made him a controversial figure. While many view him as a symbol of resistance against what they perceive as a discriminatory law, others see him as a threat to national security and communal harmony.

With the withdrawal of his bail plea, it remains to be seen how Khalid’s legal battle will unfold. The Supreme Court will no longer be required to rule on his plea, and Khalid will have to explore other legal options to seek his release. The case against him will continue in the lower courts, and the charges of conspiracy under the UAPA will be further examined. It is a crucial case that will have significant implications for the future of Khalid and the larger debate surrounding the Delhi riots and the CAA.