Five Years Since Delhi Riots, How Long Can A Person Be Kept In Jail? High Court To Delhi Police In Tasleem Ahmed's Bail Hearing

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Delhi Police as to how long an accused can be kept in jail, when it has been five years since the 2020 North-East Delhi riots?

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the question to Delhi Police's SPP, Amit Prasad, while hearing the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy in commission of the riots.

The query was put after Advocate Mehmood Pracha appearing for Ahmed made arguments on the grounds of delay in trial.

Pracha submitted that he will not make submissions on the merits of the case but will argue parity on the ground of delay and delay in trial per se.

He submitted that co accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal were granted bail on the ground of delay in trial way back in 2021, i.e. after one year and two months in custody.

“They were granted bail based on the fact that trial won't be completed and it will take substantial time. Five years have passed since then… He [Ahmed] was arrested on June 24, 2020. They [co accused on bail] were arrested in April…. I have already spent five years [in jail],” Pracha said.

He further submitted that Ahmed has never delayed the trial even for a day, which makes his case different than other co-accused persons.

“I have not taken even a single day adjournment. There has not even been a single day delay because of me in trial. I have also depleted my defence…I did not even press my Sec 207 CrPC application,” he said.

Pracha also said that while only five co-accused have completed their arguments on charge since October last year, Ahmed is the only accused who completed his arguments in a day, within 10-15 minutes.

At this stage, the Bench asked SPP Prasad: “Five years have gone by. Even arguments on charge have not completed. In matters like this, 700 witnesses, how much time a person can be kept inside?”

To this, Prasad argued that the prosecution cannot be blamed for delay in trial and took the Court through various trial court orders recording the adjournments taken by the accused persons.

The Court then asked Pracha that whether delay in trial alone was a reason cited while the co-accused in the case were granted bail.

After some queries, Pracha submitted that he was dropping his argument on parity on delay and was only confining it to delay in trial alone.

SPP Prasad submitted that Tasleem's bail application decided by the trial court was not challenged and thus, had attained finality. He submitted that the special judge had made a prima facie finding on Tasleem's involvement in the case.

Pracha then submitted that he was not pressing his arguments on the ground of parity on facts with other accused who were granted bail. He said that he was also not pressing the grounds of bail like total number of witnesses in the case which have been argued by other accused before the coordinate bench.

Pracha said that his argument is that Ahmed was arrested on June 24, 2020 and had not taken even one single adjournment before the trial court.

He also said that Ahmed be granted bail considering the fact that he has been in custody for five years and that he did not delay the process for a single day.

The matter will now be heard tomorrow at 10:30 AM.

FIR 59 of 2020 was registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A coordinate bench is hearing the bail pleas filed by co accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.

Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State