Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on Tasleem Ahmed’s bail plea in the 2020 riots conspiracy case. The Court stressed that facts, not just delays, determine bail under UAPA.
New Delhi: Today, on July 9, the Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on the bail application filed by Tasleem Ahmed, who is one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
He has been charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
ALSO READ: “Five Years Gone, No Charges Yet”: Delhi HC Slams Cops in 2020 Riots Case Delay
During the hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) representing the State began by referring to earlier legal precedents and stated that
“delay alone cannot be the ground of granting bail.”
He cited two previous judgments by the Delhi High Court—one involving Umar Khalid and the other involving Sameer Malik. In both cases, the Court had held that the UAPA was
“rightly invoked and terrorist activity has been made out.”
The Court, however, emphasized that every case must be looked at individually.
The Bench noted,
“There are different accused, there were different forces of powers in play. Bail is based on facts.”
The prosecution further argued that granting bail to Tasleem Ahmed would set a precedent for other accused in the case.
He warned,
“If you grant bail to this accused it will be easier for others to claim the same.”
The SPP also pointed out delays by the accused’s legal team and stated his intent to present the entire sequence of court proceedings.
“He says that he would like to place on record the entire order sheet.”
Responding to arguments about delay, the Court remarked,
“Once the charges are made then they start arguing on bail.”
The prosecution argued that the accused’s legal team had not contributed to the progress of the case either.
The SPP said,
“When you say that you have not delayed the trial, you have not facilitated also,”
In a rhetorical question aimed at the defense, the SPP added,
“Can they be awarded for not coming forward to argue? Facts cannot be divorced from the delay.”
The counsel for the accused, Tasleem Ahmed, offered an explanation for the delay and countered the prosecution’s claim that the delay was due to the accused side not forming a consensus. He insisted that there was “no iota of evidence” against his client.
Challenging the prosecution’s claims, the defense counsel asked,
“If my learned friend has such an open shut case then he should file the documents. Where is the hurry on his part and who is delaying?”
Highlighting the struggles faced by the accused in getting a fair hearing, the defense counsel stated,
“I have given up various other rights being pushed to the wall even while arguing bail. That is the intrinsic effect of overburdening of the system. He should put me in airtight condition; if I violate my bail should be cancelled.”
Pointing out the slow pace of proceedings in the lower court, the counsel stated,
“My first two bail applications took 9 months each in the trial court. The chargesheet is still not on record.”
At this point, the prosecution interjected and clarified,
“The chargesheet is already on record.”
The defense lawyer immediately acknowledged the correction and said,
“I stand corrected.”
ALSO READ: Transferred Judge Returns to Hear 2020 Delhi Riots UAPA Conspiracy Case from July 1
Following the arguments from both sides, the counsel for the accused concluded his submissions. With that, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict in the matter.
Background of the Case
The 2020 Delhi riots occurred in February 2020 in the northeastern parts of the national capital, leading to widespread violence, communal clashes, and significant loss of life and property. The violence, which lasted several days, resulted in the deaths of at least 53 people and left around 700 others injured.
The riots were triggered amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and counter-protests, eventually escalating into violent clashes between different communities.
In the aftermath, the Delhi Police registered several FIRs, including a major one related to an alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the riots.
This particular conspiracy case was filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) — a stringent anti-terror law — and several student activists, civil society members, and political figures were named as accused.
One such accused is Tasleem Ahmed, who was arrested on June 24, 2020, for allegedly being involved in this broader conspiracy.
The charges against him and others include instigating violence and planning riots through protests and road blockades.
The case has seen significant delays, with over 700 witnesses listed, and even after five years, arguments on framing of charges are yet to be completed.
Due to the extended delay, several co-accused in the case — including Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha — have already been granted bail by courts, citing the prolonged pre-trial detention and the right to a fair and speedy trial.
The matter remains ongoing, with increasing scrutiny over procedural delays and extended jail time without trial under harsh provisions of the UAPA.
Case Title:
Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi CRL.A.-1207/2024
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
