Back
Seeks Response on 2020 Riots Accused Athar Khan Bail Plea
Bench Issues Notice in UAPA Case Citing and
The on issued notice to the seeking a response to the bail plea of Athar Khan, an accused in the larger conspiracy case stemming from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi directed the matter to be listed after eight weeks, allowing time for the State to file its counter-affidavit.
Khan, who has been in custody since , faces charges under the stringent , alongside offences under the , the , and the . His plea challenges the 's judgment, which refused him bail by holding that he had not cleared the "" mandated under for grant of bail.
The Alleged Conspiracy and the High Court's Finding
The prosecution contends that Khan was a key figure managing the Chand Bagh protest site and played an active role in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that engulfed parts of North-East Delhi in . The , while rejecting his bail, relied on material including:
- Chats allegedly recovered from co-accused Ovais Sultan Khan
- The statement of a protected witness identified as "Pluto"
These materials, the High Court observed, indicated Khan's involvement in the conspiracy, thereby attracting the rigours of , which places stringent conditions on the grant of bail in cases where the court believes accusations are true.
Arguments Before the : , Delay, and Lack of Direct Evidence
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran , appearing for Khan, mounted a multi-pronged challenge against the continued incarceration of his client. The key submissions included:
-
with Co-Accused: Khan invoked the principle of with co-accused Shadab Ahmad , who had been granted bail by the courts.
-
and Trial Delay: Khan has remained in custody for over four years. His legal team argued that the prolonged incarceration, combined with the delay in commencement and progress of trial, made his continued detention unwarranted.
-
Challenging the Evidentiary Basis: The defence disputed the evidentiary material relied upon by the prosecution. Specifically, they highlighted:
- No weapon was recovered from Khan's possession.
- There was no CCTV footage showing his participation in the violence.
- The chats and witness statements, they argued, did not establish direct involvement in the conspiracy.
Status of the Matter
The 's issuance of notice does not constitute a determination on the merits of Khan's bail claim. , appearing for the , accepted notice on behalf of the State. The matter will now proceed after the files its formal response.
Key Observations
The core legal question in this case revolves around the interpretation and application of
, which states:
"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the power of the Court to grant bail... if the Court is of the opinion that there are
for believing that the accusation against such person is not
true."
The had earlier held that Khan had not crossed this threshold. The will now examine whether the material on record satisfies this condition, particularly in light of the arguments regarding lack of direct evidence, with co-accused, and the under .
Implications
This case is being closely watched as it touches upon the delicate balance between national security concerns under the UAPA and the fundamental rights of an accused, including the and the . A judgment in Khan's favour could set a significant precedent for other undertrials in the larger conspiracy case.
