Bail Denied Under UAPA Where Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Inciting Fatal Violence and Conspiracy

The case arises from the North East Delhi riots of February 2020, which resulted in 53 deaths and extensive property damage.

FIR No. 59/2020 was registered alleging a deep-rooted conspiracy to orchestrate violence against the CAA and NRC.

The Appellant, Athar Khan (Accused No. 15), was arrested on July 2, 2020, and charged under various sections of the IPC, the Arms Act, and Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

His initial bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on October 12, 2022, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025.

The Appellant did not challenge this high court order.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (2026), which granted bail to several co-accused, the Appellant filed a second bail application seeking parity.

The Trial Court dismissed this second application on January 29, 2026, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons released by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State.

2. Whether the accusations against the Appellant meet the "prima facie true" threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, thereby barring the grant of bail.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits the grant of bail if the court, on a perusal of the case diary/report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the person is prima facie true.

The constitutional principles regarding personal liberty under Article 21 and the "melt down" of statutory rigors during prolonged incarceration as established in K.A. Najeeb v. NIA.

General factors governing bail, including the gravity of the offence, the character of the accused, and the likelihood of tampering with witnesses as per State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee.

The Court distinguished the Appellant’s role from that of the co-accused who were granted bail and noted that the Appellant’s previous bail rejection had attained finality as it was not challenged before the Supreme Court.

Analyzing the evidence, the Court highlighted the statement of protected witness ‘Pluto’ under Section 164 CrPC, which attributed specific intent to the Appellant to cause 100-200 deaths to "resolve the issue".

This was corroborated by WhatsApp chats where the Appellant allegedly advocated for violence despite being urged by others to remain non-violent.

The Court observed that while co-accused like Shadab Ahmad were "site-level executors", the material against the Appellant suggested he was a "core conspirator" who specifically contemplated and exhorted others to commit killings and arson.

Consequently, the Court found that the gravity of the Appellant’s specific role outweighed the plea of parity or prolonged incarceration at this stage.

The Court further held that the Appellant poses a flight risk and a potential threat to witnesses if released.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s order dated January 29, 2026, denying regular bail.