The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, 7 July refused bail to Athar Khan, an accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that a prima facie case against him was established and that he posed a flight risk who could potentially influence prosecution witnesses. The ruling comes under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Court's Ruling

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed Khan's appeal challenging a trial court order that had earlier rejected his bail plea. The bench held that Khan's role in the alleged conspiracy — which the prosecution links to the loss of lives during the riots — was prima facie established on the basis of material placed before the court.

The court further flagged the possibility of Khan absconding if released, and noted the risk of witness tampering. The judgment was delivered weeks after the bench had reserved its order on Khan's plea.

WhatsApp Chats at the Heart of the Case

During hearings, the bench had orally observed that WhatsApp chats placed on record prima facie indicated Khan's active involvement in the alleged conspiracy. The court had remarked: 'To be honest, as third-party people these messages actually prove the conspiracy. They prove that all these people were together. When you conspire like this, things can go out of hand and we all are witness to what happened in 2020. These messages prove you were an active participant. It's shocking.'

Khan's counsel, advocate Arjun Dewan, had argued that the WhatsApp messages merely reflected plans to organise peaceful protests and carried no intention to incite violence. 'My messages clearly indicate we don't want any road block,' Dewan submitted, also contending that a deleted message relied upon by the prosecution was being misconstrued.

Arguments on Both Sides

The defence further contended that no weapons, money, or incriminating material were recovered from Khan, and that there was no direct evidence linking him to any act of violence. It was also argued that Khan was a local-level facilitator with no decision-making role, and sought parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmed and Gulfisha Fatima, who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that Khan's role was comparable to that of co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam — not the accused who had secured bail. 'He wasn't a sidekick. His role can be compared with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. There was a call to kill 100-200 people. His case stands on a different footing,' ASG Raju submitted.

The Broader UAPA Bail Landscape

The ruling fits into a complex and evolving legal landscape around bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, finding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on bail under the UAPA. At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring to a larger bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays could justify bail despite UAPA's restrictions. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted divergence in the interpretation of the three-judge bench decision in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, including subsequent observations in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency. The apex court directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger bench.

Earlier this month, a Delhi court also dismissed fresh regular bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, with Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court holding that the trial court was bound by the Supreme Court's 5 January order, which permitted renewal of bail pleas only after examination of protected witnesses or after one year from that order, whichever came earlier.

What Happens Next

With the larger bench question on UAPA bail and prolonged incarceration still pending before the Supreme Court, the legal trajectory of the Delhi riots conspiracy case remains unsettled. Khan's continued detention will now hinge on developments at the trial level and any future Supreme Court direction on the UAPA bail threshold.