The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that delay in trial alone cannot be a sufficient ground to secure bail.
A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that bail cannot be granted merely on the basis of long incarceration unless there is a clear violation of fundamental or constitutional rights.
The court noted that certain co-accused who are out on bail have been delaying arguments on charge, effectively prolonging the trial process. “The fact that the accused has completed his arguments on charge alone would not entitle him to bail at this juncture… as the arguments on charge were not advanced by the appellant in the first available occasion,” the bench said.
The order further clarified that while speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, systemic delays caused by the accused themselves cannot later be invoked as grounds for bail. “To ask for bail after there has been a systematic delay in trial on the part of the accused is not acceptable,” the court remarked.
It added that factors like long incarceration or pendency of trial cannot outweigh the seriousness of the charges unless the merits of the case are also considered. In this case, the appellant did not press arguments on merits, thereby preventing the court from examining the material in detail.
The bench also highlighted the lack of consensus among defence counsels despite repeated directions to coordinate the sequence of arguments. It remarked that those accused who obtained bail were seeking to delay the matter by citing the pendency of investigation, causing prejudice to those still in custody.
The court pointed out that Ahmed had only advanced arguments on April 4, 2025, during the pendency of his appeal, despite several opportunities earlier before the special court.
The 2020 Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Ahmed, along with others including activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly orchestrating the violence. While Khalid, Imam and some others have been granted bail by a different bench, several accused, including Ahmed, remain in custody.
Dismissing the plea, the bench concluded:
“In light of the peculiar facts of this case, the appellant cannot be granted bail only on the ground of delay in trial, as this would necessarily involve an assessment of the case on merits as well.”
