Delhi riots case: WhatsApp chats indicate conspiracy, Delhi HC reserves order on Athar Khan bail plea
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the bail plea filed by Athar Khan, one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, after orally observing that WhatsApp chats placed on record prima facie indicated his active involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain made the observations while hearing submissions on behalf of Khan, who has challenged a trial court order denying him bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prohibition) Act (UAPA).
During the hearing, Khan’s counsel Arjun Dewan referred to WhatsApp chats to contend that the plan among the accused persons was to organise non-violent protests and that there was no intention to incite violence.
“My messages clearly indicate we don’t want any road block,” Dewan submitted, adding that there was also a deleted message which the prosecution was attempting to portray as linked to violence.
Questioning the deletion of the message, the Justice Singh-led Bench orally remarked: “To be honest, as third-party people these messages actually prove the conspiracy. They prove that all these people were together. When you conspire like this, things can go out of hand and we all are witness to what happened in 2020. These messages prove you were an active participant. It’s shocking.”
However, Dewan argued that no weapons, money, or incriminating articles were recovered from Khan and that there was no evidence showing his involvement in any act of violence or rioting.
He contended that Khan was, at best, a “local-level facilitator” with no decision-making role in the alleged conspiracy and pointed out that there were several meetings in which his client was not present.
Seeking parity with co-accused Shadab Ahmad, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court earlier this year, Dewan argued that the allegations against Khan were similar in nature.
He also submitted that the role attributed to Gulfisha Fatima, who was enlarged on bail by the apex court, was “much graver” as she had allegedly mobilised people actively.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that Khan’s role could not be equated with those granted bail earlier.
“He wasn’t a sidekick. His role can be compared with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. There was a call to kill 100-200 people. His case stands on a different footing,” ASG Raju submitted.
The prosecution further argued that Khan fell within the category of accused persons alleged to have played a serious role in the conspiracy and, therefore, was not entitled to bail under the parameters laid down in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the Justice Singh-led Bench reserved its verdict.
Last week, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to co-accused Saleem Malik, holding that his role was akin to that of other accused who had already been granted relief by the Supreme Court. While enlarging Malik on bail, the Justice Singh-led Bench described him as a “local-level facilitator” rather than a key conspirator involved in conceptualising the alleged larger conspiracy.
According to the Delhi Police, several student activists involved in organising protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) during 2019-2020 had conspired to engineer the riots that erupted in North-East Delhi in February 2020.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the case, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
However, the apex court granted bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — while declining relief to Imam and Khalid.
