Four more weeks for Athar Khan’s Delhi riots UAPA bail plea: with the Delhi Police counter-affidavit now on record, the Supreme Court has given him three weeks to reply.
New Delhi: A day after the Delhi Police filed its counter-affidavit, the Supreme Court on Friday, October 16, took it on record and fixed the bail application of Athar Khan for hearing after four weeks. Khan is an accused in the “larger conspiracy” case over the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and he has been allowed three weeks to file a rejoinder [Athar Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared for the Delhi Police.
Equal treatment is what Khan is asking for
His case rests on parity. On January 5, 2026, a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. It declined bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, on the ground that a prima facie case under the UAPA was made out against them.
When the Court issued notice on his appeal in August, his counsel argued that he was at most a “local-level facilitator”, that he had spent about six years in custody, and that he stood on the same footing as those who were released.
From the Special Cell’s case to the Supreme Court
The case was registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell over an alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots, in which 53 people died and more than 700 were injured. Khan, a former call centre employee, was arrested in July 2020 and booked under the UAPA. According to the prosecution, he organised the protest at Chand Bagh and made inflammatory speeches. These are allegations, and none has yet been tested at trial.
A Karkardooma trial court refused him bail on January 29, 2026. His appeal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2026. That court called him one of the main conspirators and found his role “clearly distinguishable” from that of the co-accused who obtained relief from the Supreme Court. Relying on a protected witness’s statement and WhatsApp group material, it held that he could not clear the bar in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
What Section 43D(5) asks of a court
Bail is barred under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA where the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the police report, finds reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true. Parity is a recognised consideration in bail matters, though courts look at whether the role attributed to the applicant is truly comparable to that of co-accused who were let out. That is the question the High Court decided against Khan.
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots: Supreme Court Seeks Police Response on Tasleem Ahmed’s UAPA Bail Plea
No view on the merits of the bail plea has been expressed by the Court. The allegations against Khan remain untested, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until the trial concludes.
Case Title: Athar Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (descriptive)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date of Hearing: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for the Delhi Police