Evidence Of Intent To Cause Deaths Distinguishes Accused From Others: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Athar Khan In 2020 Riots Case

"The Appellant cannot be held to be a mere local-level operator but one of the main conspirators who conspired to cause deaths during the riots. Releasing the Appellant on bail at this stage would in effect mean that he could also threaten witnesses and could cause disruption in the trial." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 7, 2026, refused to grant bail to Athar Khan, an accused in the 2020 North East Delhi riots conspiracy case.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the evidence against the appellant, including specific statements regarding the intent to cause mass casualties, distinguishes his role from other co-accused who were recently granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The case pertains to the large-scale communal violence that broke out in North East Delhi in February 2020, resulting in 53 deaths and extensive property damage. Athar Khan was arrested on July 2, 2020, and arrayed as Accused No. 15 in FIR No. 59/2020, which involves charges under the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). His first bail application was rejected by the trial court and upheld by the High Court in 2025, an order which attained finality as it was not challenged before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to parity with co-accused persons like Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmad, who were granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2026. The court also examined whether the specific evidence concerning the appellant's intent to incite killings created a prima facie bar to bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Evidence Of Intent To Cause Deaths Distinguishes Appellant’s Role

The High Court noted that the prosecution's case against Athar Khan is grounded in his active participation in the conspiracy to orchestrate riots. Unlike other accused who were viewed as field-level operators, the court found specific material suggesting the appellant's involvement in planning for lethal outcomes. The bench emphasized that the fact that 53 people were actually killed cannot be viewed as a mere coincidence when viewed alongside the appellant’s alleged statements.

"The prosecution’s case is that the Appellant was an active conspirator... WhatsApp chats would also show that in some places the Appellant has sent some extremely incriminating messages which prove an active role not just in causing riots, but an active role in the deaths caused during the riots."

Protected Witness Testimony Reveals Violent Roadmap

A pivotal factor in the court's decision was the statement of a protected witness, 'Pluto', recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The witness attributed a specific and chilling statement to the appellant regarding the necessity of killings to achieve their objectives. The court observed that this statement, if true, elevates the appellant from a facilitator to a core conspirator.

"As per the protected witness, the clear and unequivocal stand of the Appellant was 'Puri delhi ko dahlana hai. Jab tak 100-200 log nahi marenge, 100-200 jagah aagjani nahi hogi tab tak hamara masla hal nahi hoga'."

WhatsApp Conversations Corroborate Insistence On Violence

The bench perused WhatsApp messages between the appellant and one Ovais Sultan Khan. The court noted that while others within the protest groups were advising against violence and urging non-violent methods, the appellant reportedly persisted with plans for road blockades and incitement. These messages, the court held, confirm the intentions of the appellant to cause actual deaths and damage to public property.

Court Distinguishes Supreme Court's Ruling In Gulfisha Fatima

The appellant had sought parity with Gulfisha Fatima and others who were granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2026. However, the High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court had distinguished between "core conspirators" and "field-level operators." In the case of Gulfisha Fatima, the apex court found she lacked independent command, whereas the roadmap for the "final phase" of violence in Chand Bagh was allegedly outlined by Athar Khan.

"In Gulfisha Fatima (Supra), the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the role of core conspirators and field-level operators... the role of the Appellant is not the same as the other co-accused who have been granted bail in the present FIR."

UAPA Bail Rigours And Constitutional Principles

The court also touched upon the evolving jurisprudence regarding Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's recent observations in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" even under UAPA, the High Court maintained that this does not entitle an accused to an automatic release regardless of the gravity of the specific allegations and the stage of the trial.

"No reading of Najeeb suggests that the mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, mechanically entitles an accused to release... the Appellant, owing to his role and the protection that needs to be given to witnesses, is not entitled to bail."

Risk To Witnesses And Trial Integrity

The High Court expressed serious concerns regarding the potential for witness tampering if the appellant were to be released. Given that many protected witnesses are yet to be examined, the bench held that the appellant posed a flight risk and a threat to the integrity of the ongoing trial. The court concluded that the accusations against the appellant remained prima facie true, thereby attracting the statutory bar against bail.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order refusing regular bail. The bench clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the final merits of the case during the trial.

Date of Decision: 07 July 2026