Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case | Accused Responsible For Delaying Trial, Not Delhi Police : High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that the accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case are themselves responsible for delaying trial at various points in time, and not the Delhi Police or the Trial Court.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the accused who are out on bail- Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, are delaying arguments on charge “at the cost of the accused in prison.”

“Undoubtedly, speedy trial is a concomitant and a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, to ask for bail after there has been a systematic delay in trial on the part of the accused, is not acceptable and if it is done then the statute, which restricts the grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial can easily be circumvented by delaying the trial on the one hand and by pressing bail applications on the other,” the Court said.

The Bench made the observations while dismissing the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Tasleem Ahmed was arrested on June 19, 2020.

The Court said that a bare perusal of the order sheets of the trial court clearly indicated that the Counsels for the accused persons have taken many adjournments during the course of arguments on charge.

“The order-sheets show that the learned Counsel for the accused were not ready to argue the matter on charge, thereby protracting the proceedings. The facts and order sheets reveal that the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial at various points in time. The inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant herein is not due to the inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court,” the Court said.

It added that the material on record showed that at no point of time, the Trial Court has or has unnecessarily delayed the arguments on charge.

The Court said that to facilitate the proceedings properly and in a speedy manner, the Trial Court ensured that the proceedings take place in a structured manner, wherein liberty was given to the accused persons to come to a consensus as to who will argue the case sequentially.

The Bench observed that it is inevitable that the Court while dealing with the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA has to deal with the merits of the case.

It added that except in case of palpable violation of fundamental rights or breach of constitutional rights, bail cannot be granted on the sole factor of long incarceration or delay in trial.

“…to even allow itself to adjudicate on the issue of grant of bail under Section 43D(5), the Courts must analyse and examine the material provided by the Investigating Agency in whole, which is nothing but assessing the merits of the case on a prima facie basis,” the Court said.

It added: “Factors such as long incarceration or delay in trial cannot be taken as sole factors for the grant of bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the role played by the accused in the said case, which can be only determined upon a consideration on the merits of the case. Such factors are only ancillary in nature and cannot be viewed in isolation for considering bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.”

The Court further said that it is imperative for the accused to show the Court that the factors such as delay in trial and long incarceration warrants bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, when coupled with the merits of the case.

It added that the fact that Ahmed has completed his arguments on charge alone would not entitle him to bail at this juncture on the ground of delay in trial as the arguments on charge were not advanced by him in the first available occasion.

“In light of the foregoing reasons and especially in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the Appellant cannot be granted bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA only on the ground of delay in trial keeping in mind, the Judgment of Gurwinder Singh, (supra), as the same would have to include the determination of a “prima facie” case, which would involve an assessment of the case on merits as well,” the Court said.

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.

Also Read: Trial Against Umar Khalid & Others Will Progress In Natural Pace; Hurried Trial Will Affect Rights : Delhi High Court

Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State

Click here to read order