उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 2020 के उत्तर-पूर्व दिल्ली दंगों के साजिश मामले में आरोपी अत्थर खान की जमानत याचिका (bail plea) पर दिल्ली पुलिस को नोटिस जारी किया है, जिसमें याचिकाकर्ता ने समान स्थिति वाले सह-आरोपी के आधार पर समानता (parity) के सिद्धांत के तहत नियमित जमानत की मांग की है।
उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 2020 के उत्तर-पूर्व दिल्ली दंगों के साजिश मामले में आरोपी अत्थर खान की जमानत याचिका (bail plea) पर दिल्ली पुलिस को नोटिस जारी किया है, जिसमें याचिकाकर्ता ने समान स्थिति वाले सह-आरोपी के आधार पर समानता (parity) के सिद्धांत के तहत नियमित जमानत की मांग की है।
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Delhi Police on a Special Leave Petition filed by Athar Khan, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, seeking regular bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted relief earlier this year.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi took up the petition challenging the order of the Delhi High Court passed on July 7, 2026. The High Court had upheld the trial court's decision refusing to grant bail to the petitioner.
Background of the Case and Charges
Athar Khan was arrested in connection with FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police to investigate an alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North-East Delhi in February 2020. The investigative agency invoked provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, along with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The statutory provisions invoked against the petitioner include Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist act), and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA. In addition, the prosecution charged the accused under several IPC sections, including Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 124A (sedition), Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups), Section 395 (dacoity), Section 436 (mischief by fire), and related offences pertaining to rioting and unlawful assembly.
Plea for Parity and Grounds for Relief
Represented by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran alongside a team of advocates, the petitioner contended before the apex court that his continued custody is unwarranted, particularly in light of judicial relief granted to other co-accused individuals in the same FIR.
The primary line of argument rests on parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who secured bail from the Supreme Court in January 2026. The defense emphasized that the nature of allegations, the role attributed by the investigating agency, and the overall material pressed into service against the petitioner are comparable to those of the co-accused who has already been released on bail. Consequently, the defense submitted that denying equal treatment would violate constitutional guarantees of equality before the law.
Intersection with UAPA Bail Jurisprudence
The hearing occurs against the backdrop of an evolving debate within the Supreme Court regarding the standards for granting bail under special penal statutes like the UAPA, where Section 43D(5) creates strict statutory bars against releasing accused persons if a prima facie case is made out.
Recently, a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale referred the interpretation of the landmark three-judge bench decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) to a larger bench. In K.A. Najeeb, the Supreme Court established that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, notwithstanding statutory restrictions.
This reference to a larger bench became necessary following observations made by another two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi. The bench in Andrabi pointed out that subsequent decisions—specifically Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh—had taken a narrow interpretation of UAPA bail provisions, departing from the constitutional principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb.
While interim bail was granted to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi pending clarification on these legal principles, Athar Khan’s fresh petition brings the focus back to parity and the impact of extended pre-trial detention.
Legal Representation and Next Steps
During the initial hearing, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, along with Advocates Fauzia Shakil, Ahmad Ibrahim, Varisha Sharma, Shruti Narayan, Aryan Deol, M. Huzaifa, Ayesha Zaidi, Nida Khan Salim, and Advocate-on-Record Ujjwal Singh, appeared for the petitioner.
The respondent State and Delhi Police were represented by Additional Solicitor General D.P. Singh, accompanied by Advocates Shreya Dutt, Garima Saxena, Pranjal Singh, Anmol Chandan, Satitya Anand, Kartikeya Asthana, and Advocate-on-Record Dr. N. Visakamurthy.
With notice now issued to the Delhi Police, the prosecution is expected to file its counter-affidavit addressing the claims of parity and prolonged custody before the Supreme Court takes up the matter for further hearing.
Discription: The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Delhi Police on a Special Leave Petition filed by Athar Khan, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020). Challenging the Delhi High Court’s July 2026 order denying him bail, Khan has sought regular bail before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi. His plea relies primarily on parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail by the apex court in January 2026. Booked under the UAPA and IPC, Khan’s petition intersects with ongoing judicial scrutiny regarding pre-trial detention, Article 21 rights, and statutory bail bars under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.