Delhi High Court Rejects Athar Khan’s Bail Plea in 2020 Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Bench cites prima facie evidence, protected witness statements and flight-risk concerns while upholding trial court’s refusal to grant bail under UAPA.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of Athar Khan, an accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, affirming the trial court’s decision to deny him relief under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The judgment marks another significant development in one of the country’s most closely watched criminal prosecutions.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain upheld the January 29, 2026 order of the trial court. The High Court observed that the material placed on record, including statements of protected witnesses, justified the continued denial of bail at this stage of the proceedings.
The Court noted that there was a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, Athar Khan could become a flight risk. The Bench specifically referred to statements of protected witnesses while concluding that the statutory conditions governing bail under the UAPA had not been satisfied.
Athar Khan is among several individuals charge-sheeted by the Delhi Police in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case arising out of the communal violence that erupted in North-East Delhi in February 2020. The prosecution alleges that the accused were involved in planning and coordinating violence during the anti-CAA protests, allegations that have been strongly disputed by several of the accused.
During the earlier hearings, the High Court had reserved its verdict after hearing extensive submissions from both sides. The Bench had also observed that certain WhatsApp chats placed on record appeared, at least prima facie, to indicate Khan’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, though the final determination of guilt remains subject to trial.
The prosecution argued that the allegations against Khan are grave and relate to offences under the UAPA, where the law imposes a higher threshold for grant of bail. It maintained that the evidence collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case warranting his continued custody pending trial.
The defence, on the other hand, sought bail by challenging the prosecution’s evidence and contending that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial infringes personal liberty. However, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the trial court’s assessment at this stage.
The decision adds to a series of judicial orders in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, where courts have continued to examine bail applications of various accused under the UAPA on the basis of the statutory restrictions, the nature of allegations, and the evidence collected during the investigation. The trial in the larger conspiracy case is continuing before the designated court, and the merits of the prosecution’s allegations will ultimately be determined during the course of the trial.
