Earlier, a special bench was hearing his plea along with other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
NEW DELHI: 24th March, The Delhi High Court directs Delhi Police to submit a note on the role of accused Tasleem Ahmed in the larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots.
He has sought regular bail, and the matter is listed for hearing on April 8.
Previously, Delhi High Court has decided to list the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed before the roster bench for hearing. Earlier, a special bench was hearing his plea along with other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar ordered that the bail plea be placed before the roster bench for a hearing on March 25.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Tasleem Ahmed, requested the court to assign the case to the roster bench. He argued that “his case is different from other co-accused persons.”
The case involves multiple accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, and others. The accused were charged under stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
On February 22, 2024, the trial court rejected Tasleem Ahmed’s bail plea. He had sought regular bail based on parity with three co-accused: Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.
These three co-accused were granted regular bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021, after their appeals against the trial court’s decision were allowed.
Earlier, Special Judge Sameer Bajpai noted that a previous bail application by Tasleem Ahmed had already been dismissed by the predecessor court on March 16, 2022. The court had found “the allegations against the accused prima facie true.”
The court also stated that “hence the embargo created by Section 43D of UAPA applies for a grant of bail to the accused and also the embargo contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C.”
The defense had argued that the accused, apart from being eligible for bail on merit, “is now also entitled to be set at liberty on the grounds of parity.”
However, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed this plea, stating that similar arguments had been made in the previous bail application.
The prosecution noted that “in the earlier bail application also, the applicant had raised grounds of parity and this court had been pleased to deal with the said plea and the applicant was not given any favour.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
