Delhi Riots: Police Says Delay Alone No Reason For Bail Under UAPA, High Court Reserves Order On Tasleem Ahmed's Bail Plea

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing Advocate Mehmood Pracha for Ahmed and SPP Amit Prasad representing the Delhi Police.

Yesterday, Pracha made arguments on the grounds of delay in the trial, saying that he did not take even a single day's adjournment before the trial court and concluded arguments on charge on a single day, within 10-15 minutes. Yet, he had been languishing in jail since five years.

During the hearing today, SPP Amit Prasad submitted that delay alone cannot be a reason for the grant of bail while dealing with Section 43D(4) of UAPA.

He also said that facts cannot be divorced when bail is sought on the ground of delay. Prasad relied on the Supreme Court rulings in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain and Vernon v. State Of Maharashtra.

Prasad also contended that interim bail cannot be granted by High Court while hearing an appeal rejecting the grant of bail by the trial court, in absence of emergent reasons.

As Prasad submitted that Ahmed, as an accused, cannot divert himself from the overall conspiracy, Justice Prasad remarked:

“A person may be a part of the conspiracy. There are different forces pulling a person on different lines. Persons who are out are saying tell me whether the investigation is complete or not… There are different accused. One of the accused who did nothing is the poor guy waiting for things to happen… what to do about that man?"

Prasad then submitted that if bail is granted to Tasleem Ahmed on the grounds of delay alone, then it will be very easy for other co accused persons to get the relief on same ground.

“If today, my lords are inclined to grant bail to him, it becomes very easy for others to say that I didn't do anything and make sure that there is delay and get bail,” he said.

“When you say you have not delayed the trial, you have not facilitated the trial also…. You don't argue and then say there was delay in trial. Can they be awarded for not coming forward to argue?,” Prasad continued.

Making rebuttal submissions, Pracha argued that even if the Court passes an order for day to day trial, the same will not happen due to workload before the trial court.

“Even if your honour passes an order, it won't happen. It is not possible for the trial courts to conduct day to day trial due to the workload. They are not super computers, the judges alone,” he said.

Pracha said that forget Ahmed's right to speedy trial but even his bail plea was not been adjudicated.

“Forget speedy trial, my bail application is not being heard. It is not about the trial. I am forced to… I can't think of a better word. I am compelled to give up my rights even when arguing my bail due to the burden. That is the effect of overburdening of the system. I am making a statement at the bar that if I took even one adjournment, my bail may be cancelled,” he said.

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