Breaking Supreme Court Mandates 90-Day Deadline for Framing Charges in Dowry Cases: A Comprehensive 10-Point Directive
New Delhi · Friday, 04 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Legal News 03 September 2026

Supreme Court Issues Notice to Delhi Police on Bail Plea of Delhi Riots Accused Athar Khan

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 2020 के उत्तर-पूर्वी दिल्ली दंगे के मुख्य षड्यंत्र मामले में आरोपी अत्थर खान की नियमित जमानत (regular bail) याचिका (petition) पर दिल्ली पुलिस को नोटिस जारी कर समानता के सिद्धांत (principle of parity) के आधार पर जवाब मांगा है।

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 2020 के उत्तर-पूर्वी दिल्ली दंगे के मुख्य षड्यंत्र मामले में आरोपी अत्थर खान की नियमित जमानत (regular bail) याचिका (petition) पर दिल्ली पुलिस को नोटिस जारी कर समानता के सिद्धांत (principle of parity) के आधार पर जवाब मांगा है।

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has issued a formal notice to the Delhi Police regarding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Athar Khan, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. The petition challenges a recent decision by the Delhi High Court that denied him regular bail.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi took up the matter for hearing and agreed to examine the plea. The court sought a response from the investigating authorities on whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the principle of parity with other co-accused individuals who have already been released.

Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch. The FIR alleges a widespread criminal conspiracy orchestrated to trigger communal violence during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in February 2020. The resulting violence in North-East Delhi led to 53 deaths, left over 100 people injured, and caused extensive property damage.

Athar Khan was arrested under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860—including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempted murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 124A (sedition)—alongside charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, specifically Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18, which deal with unlawful activities and acts of terrorism.

Plea for Parity and Previous Judicial Orders
In his petition before the apex court, Khan has sought relief primarily on the ground of parity. He submitted that co-accused Shadab Ahmad was granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2026. The defence argued that Khan’s alleged participation in local protest groups was similar to that of other individuals who were subsequently granted bail.

Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, Khan filed a second regular bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed on January 29, 2026. He subsequently appealed the trial court's decision before the Delhi High Court.

On July 7, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 137/2026). The High Court observed that the allegations and recovered WhatsApp messages prima facie indicated that Khan was an active participant in organizing violent actions rather than merely a ground-level worker. The High Court further held that the strict statutory conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not satisfied in his case and that the principle of parity could not be applied automatically without evaluating individual roles.

Legal Arguments and Ongoing UAPA Deliberations
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Athar Khan, argued that the petitioner has endured prolonged incarceration during the trial process and requested the court to consider the relief granted to other similarly situated individuals. Additional Solicitor General D.P. Singh represented the State and the Delhi Police.

The development comes amidst broader judicial discussions regarding the interpretation of statutory bail conditions under special legislation like the UAPA. The Supreme Court has previously referred the application of the precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)—which recognized long incarceration as a potential ground for bail despite statutory restrictions—to a larger bench during interim bail proceedings involving other co-accused in the same FIR.

The Supreme Court has directed the Delhi Police to file its response, after which the matter will be listed for further consideration.

Case Summary
 

DetailsDescription
Case TitleAthar Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi
Petition ReferenceSpecial Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14920/2026
Court & BenchSupreme Court of India — Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Impugned OrderDelhi High Court Judgment dated July 7, 2026 (CRL.A. 137/2026)
Primary Statute InvolvedUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Section 43D(5)) & Indian Penal Code, 1860
Key Ground AdvancedParity with co-accused granted bail (Shadab Ahmad) and period of incarceration

Discription: The Supreme Court of India has issued a 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. Khan has challenged the Delhi High Court's order of July 7, 2026, which denied him regular bail.

Represented by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, Khan seeks bail primarily on grounds of parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail in January 2026. Khan was arrested under FIR 59/2020, facing severe charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The matter comes amid ongoing judicial deliberations regarding long incarceration as a ground for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Have a legal problem? Ask a lawyer — free.
Post your question and verified advocates near you can respond. No charge to ask.
Ask your question free →

1. Who issued notice on Athar Khan's bail plea?
The Supreme Court of India issued a formal notice to the Delhi Police on the Special Leave Petition filed by Athar Khan. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi agreed to examine his plea for regular bail.
2. What key ground did Athar Khan advance to seek bail?
Athar Khan sought bail primarily on the ground of parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2026. He also cited his prolonged incarceration during the trial process.
3. Why did the Delhi High Court previously deny bail to Athar Khan?
The Delhi High Court observed that WhatsApp messages prima facie showed Khan was an active participant in organizing violence. It held that statutory conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not satisfied and parity could not apply automatically.
4. What charges is Athar Khan facing under FIR No. 59/2020?
Athar Khan faces charges under IPC sections including murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, and sedition. He is also charged under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. Who is hearing Athar Khan's bail plea in the Supreme Court?
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi is hearing Athar Khan's bail plea.
6. What is the primary ground on which Athar Khan has sought bail?
Athar Khan has sought bail primarily on the ground of parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2026.
7. Which key laws and FIR are involved in Athar Khan's case?
The case stems from FIR No. 59/2020 and involves charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. Why did the Delhi High Court previously deny bail to Athar Khan?
The Delhi High Court denied bail after observing that recovered WhatsApp messages indicated Athar Khan was an active participant in organizing violent actions and that conditions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA were not satisfied.