Karkardooma Court Grants Interim Bail To Athar Khan To Attend Cousin’s Marriage

Shahrukh Pathan

The Karkardooma Court recently granted Athar Khan interim bail for one week to attend his cousin’s marriage.

Khan, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, is charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with his regular bail application still pending before the High Court.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai authorized the interim bail from January 27 to February 2, 2025. “Considering all facts and circumstances, the interim bail is granted from 27.01.2025 to 02.02.2025, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount,” the court ruled on January 23.

The court explicitly directed that Khan be released in the morning of January 27 and return by the evening of February 2. During this period, he must remain at his residence or the designated wedding venues. He is prohibited from contacting individuals outside his close circle of relatives and friends or from engaging with witnesses in the ongoing case. Additionally, Khan is barred from using social media during the interim bail period.

Representing Khan, the defense counsel argued that the marriage ceremonies of his cousin, Ms. Wajiha, are scheduled from January 24 to February 2, 2025. The counsel also highlighted that similar relief had been extended to co-accused for attending family events.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, citing Section 43(5)(d) of UAPA, which restricts interim bail under such charges. They argued that attending a cousin’s marriage does not constitute a compelling reason for bail and that the requested 17-day duration was excessive. “The marriage schedule presented by the applicant spans an unreasonably long period, making such a request unjustifiable,” the prosecution asserted.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the prosecution\u2019s concerns but opted for a reduced bail duration, imposing stringent conditions to prevent potential misuse. The ruling reflects a judicial effort to weigh individual liberties against the stringent requirements of UAPA, illustrating the nuanced challenges of balancing personal and legal considerations in cases involving national security laws.