Persisted With Engaging In Violent Protests To The Extent Of Causing Deaths: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Athar Khan In 2020 Riots Case

The High Court was considering a matter pertaining to the unfortunate North East Delhi riots which occurred in February 2020. The Appellant, Athar Khan, has filed the appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the order dismissing the application filed by the Appellant seeking regular bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain held, “In the opinion of this Court, any evidence which would point to the Appellant’s role in the deaths which were caused during the riots would make Appellant a core conspirator and not merely an executor at the ground level.”

“The role of Athar Khan, which has in fact been more than prima facie established from the chats recovered from Ovais Sultan Khan, would indicate that while others were suggesting that he resort only to non-violent protests, he persisted with his objective of engaging in violent protests, to the extent of even causing death. The fact that deaths were caused during the said riots cannot be, therefore, a mere matter of co-incidence”, it added.

Advocate Arjun Dewan represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident relates to the riots which took place in the heart of East Delhi from 23rd to 25th February, 2020, which led to 53 persons succumbing to their injuries and losing their lives. More than 100 persons sustained injuries, and extensive damage was caused to the properties of the residents. The situation took several days to return to normalcy. An FIR was registered initially under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, during the course of investigation, offences under Section 120B read with Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC as also under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were added to the subject FIR.

The prosecution alleged that a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy was hatched by several accused persons and individuals, including the present Appellant, to orchestrate large-scale riots in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in protest against the enactment of the CAA and the NRC. These riots were allegedly carried out by inciting widespread communal violence which resulted in the loss of 53 lives, including the death of a Senior Police Officer and an Intelligence Bureau Official, grievous injuries to several Police officers and members of the public, and damage to more than 1,500 public and private properties.

Out of the nine accused persons whose appeals were decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, seven accused persons approached the Supreme Court, of whom bail was denied to two accused persons i.e., Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The remaining accused persons were granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Appellant did not challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court. The appeal emanated from a second regular bail application which had been filed by the Appellant before the Trial Court. In the first round, the regular bail application filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Trial Court. The same was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the prosecution’s case that the Appellant was an active conspirator in the North-East Delhi riots and, as per the Bench, the same was clear from various WhatsApp chats of the DPSG group placed on record. “It can be seen from the said chats that the Appellant has repeatedly sent messages on the said group and has actively participated in the riots. Moreover, the said 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, destruction of property, etc., but an active role in the deaths which have been caused during the riots”, it added.

The Bench further took note of the role of the other co-accused as discussed by the Apex Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026). Sharjeel Imam was stated to have not even been present in Delhi during the relevant period in January 2020, but still the Supreme Court held that even if the accusations were prima facie true, the bail application filed by such an individual needed to be rejected. In the case of Umar Khalid, the Supreme Court held him to be a principal conspirator. Shifa Ur Rehman and Saleem Khan were granted bail.

The appellant Athar Khan sought parity with co-accused, Shadab Ahmad. Both of them were members of the DPSG. The Apex Court had found that Shadab Ahmad was a local-level facilitator. The Appellant also sought parity with co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, who was stated to have actively mobilized women protestors in North-East Delhi.

Reference was made to the statement of the protected witness, ‘Pluto’, where the Appellant was stated to have clearly encouraged, exhorted and led others to cause destruction through fire and to cause deaths through violence, the Bench stated, “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 as well. Despite his team mates repeatedly asking him not to engage in violence, the Appellant refused to obey the same. The Appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be a mere local-level operator but one of the main conspirators who conspired to cause deaths during the riots. Thus, the case of the Appellant is clearly distinguishable from the other co-accused persons”, it held.

The Bench was of the view that the Appellant, owing to his role and the protection that needs to be given to witnesses, was not entitled to bail. Thus, upholding the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Athar Khan v. State of NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5408-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Arjun Dewan, Varisha Sharma, Aryan Deol

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey, Advocates Dhurv Pandey, Ananya Bose

Click here to read/download Order