The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police in a bail application filed by Athar Khan in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The notice was issued by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi after entertaining a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order dated July 7, 2026, which had denied Khan bail.
The petition seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2026. Athar Khan was arrested in FIR No. 59/2020 and faces charges under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA, along with multiple offences under the IPC including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 186 (obstructing public servant), 212 (harbouring offender), 395 (dacoity), 427 (mischief causing damage), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 454 (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), 109 (abetment), 114 (abettor present when offence committed), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between groups), and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The court’s notice comes amid ongoing judicial scrutiny of bail principles in UAPA cases. It may be noted that a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale had previously referred to a larger bench the question of interpreting the three-judge judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration could be a ground for granting bail in UAPA cases despite the statute’s stringent provisions. That reference was made while granting interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
The reference to a larger bench arose from criticism expressed in a two-judge bench judgment in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, where Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that earlier judgments in Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh—both authored by Justice Aravind Kumar—had taken a narrow approach to bail in UAPA matters, departing from the principle laid down in KA Najeeb.
The case is listed as Athar Khan v State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14920/2026. Appearances for the petitioner include Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Ms. Varisha Sharma, Ms. Shruti Narayan, Mr. Aryan Deol, Mr. M Huzaifa, Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Ms. Nida Khan Salim, and Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Advocate-on-Record. For the respondent, the appearances are led by Mr. D.P Singh, Additional Solicitor General, along with Ms. Shreya Dutt, Ms. Garima Saxena, Mr. Pranjal Singh, Mr. Anmol Chandan, Mr. Satitya Anand, Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, and Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advocate-on-Record.