On 2nd September, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, one of the accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The Bench clarified that the argument of “delay” raised by Ahmed could not be accepted since the trial record itself showed that the adjournments were repeatedly sought by the co-accused. Many of those co-accused, the Court noted, are already out on bail.

The judges underlined that while the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial, it cannot be stretched to become a loophole by those responsible for stalling proceedings.

Defence Argues on Five Years in Custody and Right to Speedy Trial

During the hearing, Ahmed’s lawyer placed heavy reliance on the principle of speedy trial. He pointed out that Ahmed had been in custody since 19th June 2020, meaning he had already spent more than five years as an undertrial without the commencement of the trial itself. The counsel argued that this was a direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a trial conducted within a reasonable time.

The defence also highlighted that the prosecution had informed the court about its plan to examine hundreds of witnesses. With the case still stuck at the stage of arguments on charge, there was no clear indication of when the trial might realistically begin or conclude. In support of the bail plea, Ahmed’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.A. Najeeb, where it was held that prolonged incarceration—even in cases under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—could be a ground for bail.

The defence contended that liberty could not be indefinitely restricted just because the allegations were grave. In their submission, “liberty cannot be indefinitely curtailed simply because the allegations are serious.” They therefore argued that the sheer length of Ahmed’s custody should tilt the scales in his favour and justify his release on bail.

Prosecution Says Co-Accused Responsible for Dragging Proceedings

The prosecution, represented by the Solicitor General and supported by the Special Public Prosecutor, strongly objected to this line of reasoning. They accepted that in rare cases prolonged custody could justify bail, but insisted that the facts of Ahmed’s case did not permit such relief. To establish their point, they placed on record detailed trial court proceedings that showed how arguments on charge were repeatedly adjourned at the request of the accused themselves.

According to the prosecution, adjournments were sought on multiple occasions by co-accused such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, all of whom are already out on bail. Moreover, even those still behind bars, like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, had also sought adjournments, further delaying the process. The trial court itself had taken note of these delays, recording that the repeated requests from the accused were slowing down the case.

The prosecution described this as an attempt to misuse the judicial process. It was argued that this strategy amounted to “gaming the system”—deliberately delaying trial proceedings and then invoking those very delays to seek bail. They stressed that the K.A. Najeeb precedent could not be applied in cases where the delay was “self-inflicted.” They urged the High Court not to allow a situation where the accused benefited from tactics that prolonged the trial in the first place.

Court Notes ‘Systematic Delay’ Caused by the Accused

The Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar accepted the prosecution’s argument. After reviewing the trial court records, the judges found that adjournments had indeed been sought again and again by the accused, despite an earlier consensus to proceed with arguments. The trial court had even expressed its “distress” over this pattern of conduct in its order dated 4th October 2024.

The High Court made its position clear by stating: “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 accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial.”

The judges went further, issuing a caution against the misuse of constitutional protections. They remarked: “Speedy trial is a fundamental right. But to ask for bail after there has been 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 pointed out that Ahmed himself only began advancing his arguments on charge in April 2025, long after he had filed the present appeal. This, the Bench concluded, meant that the delay argument in Ahmed’s case carried no weight.

UAPA’s Tough Bail Bar Stressed

The Bench also emphasised the legal threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prevents bail if the accusations appear “prima facie true.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Watali, the Court reiterated that bail under UAPA is to be seen as an exception rather than a norm.

While acknowledging that personal liberty is important, the judges clarified that it cannot outweigh the gravity of offences linked to terrorism or conspiracies against the State. They underlined that long custody by itself—without other compelling factors—was not sufficient to secure release on bail in such serious cases.

Case Background

Tasleem Ahmed is listed as Accused No. 12 in FIR 59/2020, which is the principal case relating to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi. He faces charges under several provisions, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the UAPA, particularly those relating to terrorism and conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, the riots were not random or spontaneous but were instead part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” timed to coincide with the visit of the then US President, Donald Trump. The violence led to the deaths of 53 people, caused injuries to scores of civilians and police officers, and resulted in large-scale destruction of public and private property.

Ahmed is among a group of accused that includes student activists, local political figures, and organisers of protest sites, whom the police allege had different but coordinated roles in the conspiracy.

By rejecting Ahmed’s plea, the Delhi High Court has sent out a strong message: while the right to a speedy trial is inviolable, it cannot be turned into a loophole by those accused of deliberately dragging proceedings and then using the very delays as grounds to seek bail.