Court cites substantial evidence linking Athar Khan to violent acts during North-East Delhi riots, dismisses appeal for bail.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of bail for Athar Khan, an accused in the North-East Delhi riots case, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Division Bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, dismissed Khan's appeal, citing prima facie evidence of his active involvement in inciting violence, leading to deaths and widespread destruction of property during the riots.
Athar Khan, who did not challenge previous bail rejection orders, has been accused of playing a central role in orchestrating the riots that took place in February 2020. The prosecution claims that Khan was part of a larger conspiracy hatched to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which resulted in the tragic loss of 53 lives and significant damage to public and private property.
Key to the court's decision was the testimony of a protected witness, referred to as 'Pluto', whose statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implicated Khan in encouraging violent actions. The court noted that WhatsApp conversations further corroborated the witness's statements, demonstrating Khan's intentions to incite violence despite opposition from his peers.
The court distinguished Khan's role from other co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that his actions were not episodic but integral to the conspiracy. His involvement, according to the court, posed a flight risk and a threat of witness intimidation, thereby justifying the denial of bail.
In the backdrop of the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases, the Delhi High Court noted the necessity of protecting witnesses and ensuring the integrity of the trial process. The ruling underscores the court's adherence to principles of justice and security, especially in cases involving serious charges under special statutes like the UAPA.
As the legal proceedings continue, the court's decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in balancing personal liberty with national security concerns.
Bottom line:-
Bail under UAPA - Court denied bail to the appellant, observing that his role was prima facie established in causing deaths through violent acts and destruction of property during the North-East Delhi riots.
Statutory provision(s): Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Athar Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2936458
