New Delhi, Feb 22 Delhi Court has once again denied bail to Tasleem Ahmed, who is implicated in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). This decision underscores the complexities of legal proceedings in cases involving allegations of a larger conspiracy.
Also Read- Delhi Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Rape By Woman He Met On Bumble (lawchakra.in)
Ahmed’s plea for regular bail was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, highlighting a distinct approach from the Delhi High Court’s treatment of co-accused individuals such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were previously granted bail. The court clarified,
“As such it is important to note that the opinion of the Hon’ble High Court is with respect to the co-accused persons only and is not general and therefore, cannot be considered for any other accused including the applicant.”
This decision marks the second denial of bail for Ahmed, with his initial plea being dismissed in March 2022. The court maintained its stance based on the predecessor bench’s findings, which concluded that the allegations against Ahmed were prima facie true, thus providing “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against him were prima-facie true.”
The judge further stated,
“Surprisingly, the said order of the ld. predecessor order has not been challenged by the applicant and this court now cannot review its own order and give any contrary opinion,”
indicating a legal deadlock for Ahmed’s bail prospects.
The case, registered as FIR 59 of 2020 by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell, encompasses a broad spectrum of accusations under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the UAPA. It involves multiple accused, including notable figures such as Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, and Natasha Narwal, among others, painting a complex picture of the events that unfolded during the 2020 riots.
This ruling not only sheds light on the judicial process concerning bail applications under the UAPA but also reflects the ongoing legal scrutiny of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. As the case continues to unfold, it remains a focal point for discussions on civil liberties, the application of anti-terrorism laws, and the judiciary’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperatives of public safety and order.
