New Delhi: Delhi High Court Tuesday refused to grant bail to Athar Khan in the UAPA case pertaining to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the Feb 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that his role in the violence was prima facie established and that he posed a flight risk.Dismissing Khan’s appeal against a trial court’s Jan 29 order denying him bail, a division bench of justices Prathibha M Singh and Madhu Jain held that the evidence on record did not satisfy the test for bail under section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The bench also held that Khan’s release could endanger witnesses, observing that “even if the normal conditions of bail are applied, in this case, the appellant, owing to his role and the protection that needs to be given to witnesses, is not entitled to bail.”The court said the evidence against Khan, including WhatsApp chats recovered from co-accused Ovais Sultan Khan and the statement of protected witness “Pluto”, prima facie established his role as one of the main conspirators in the violence. It observed that while others urged non-violent protests, Khan “persisted with his objective of engaging in violent protests, to the extent of even causing death.”Khan had sought parity with co-accused Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahamad, arguing that he was neither found in possession of weapons nor had meetings with Umar Khalid, and that no incriminating articles were recovered from him. However, the court rejected the plea, noting that he had not challenged an earlier bail rejection order dated Sep 2, 2025. Consequently, “neither the allegations attributable to the appellant nor the degree of his alleged participation fell for consideration before the Supreme Court” while deciding Fatima’s case.Opposing the bail plea, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju argued, “His (Khan’s) role can be compared with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. He has said that 100-150 people should be killed… He would not fit into a sidekick or peripheral role. His role is on a different footing.”Relying on Pluto’s statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the bench observed that Khan had “clearly encouraged, exhorted and led others to cause destruction through fire and to cause deaths through violence”, describing it as “an extremely serious material”. It further noted the prosecution’s allegation that Khan received funds from co-accused Tahir Hussain for the protests.