Delhi HC rejects Athar Khan’s bail in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case; says he may influence witnesses

New Delhi, July 7 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to Athar Khan, an accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that there was a prima facie case against him and observing that he posed a flight risk and could influence witnesses.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain dismissed Khan’s appeal challenging a trial court order rejecting his bail plea under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Upholding the trial court’s decision, the Justice Singh-led Bench observed that Khan’s role in the alleged conspiracy resulting in the loss of lives during the riots was prima facie established.

The Delhi High Court further said that there was a possibility of Khan absconding if released on bail and that he could influence prosecution witnesses.

The verdict comes weeks after the Justice Singh-led Bench had reserved its judgment on Khan’s plea.

During the hearing, the Delhi High Court had orally observed that WhatsApp chats placed on record prima facie indicated Khan’s active involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

Appearing for Khan, advocate Arjun Dewan had argued that the WhatsApp messages merely reflected plans to organise peaceful protests and did not disclose any intention to incite violence.

“My messages clearly indicate we don’t want any road block,” Dewan had submitted, while contending that a deleted message relied upon by the prosecution was being misconstrued.

However, the Justice Singh-led Bench had orally remarked that the chats appeared to establish the existence of the alleged conspiracy and Khan’s participation in it.

“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,” the Delhi High Court had observed.

The defence had further argued that no weapons, money or incriminating material were recovered from Khan and that there was no evidence directly linking him to any act of violence.

It was also submitted that he was merely a local-level facilitator with no decision-making role in the alleged conspiracy 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, had argued that Khan’s role was comparable to that of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam rather than the co-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 had submitted.

Earlier this month, a Delhi court dismissed the regular bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January 5 order refusing them bail and that their fresh applications were not maintainable.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court held that the trial court was bound by the apex court’s directions, which permitted the two accused to renew their bail pleas only after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or upon the expiry of one year from the Supreme Court’s January 5 order, whichever was earlier.

The trial court also declined to examine the defence argument that subsequent judgments, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, constituted a change in circumstances, observing that the legal issue arising from divergent Supreme Court rulings had already been referred to a larger Bench and remained unsettled.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of 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 delay in trial could justify grant of bail despite the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale noted the divergence in the interpretation of the three-judge Bench decision in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, including the subsequent observations made in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency case.

Acting on submissions made by ASG Raju regarding the conflicting approaches adopted by coordinate Benches, the apex court directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Ahmed and Saifi for six months, observing that they had undergone substantial incarceration and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

–IANS

pds/rad