Speedy trial a right but delay by accused: What HC said denying Tasleem Ahmed bail in 2020 riots case

Ahmed was arrested on 19 June, 2020, and has been in custody without significant progress in trial. He cited violation of constitutional right to liberty for seeking bail.

Tasleem Ahmed is an accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the case of the February 2020 riots in Delhi that left 53 people dead | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bail plea by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, that was primarily sought on grounds of inordinate delay in trial, holding that the prolonged trial could not be blamed on the police or courts but on the accused.

A division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar examined trial court records and found that arguments on charges had repeatedly been adjourned at the request of the accused. It also noted that some co-accused already on bail, including student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, were responsible for delaying proceedings “at the cost of those in custody”.

It thus held that the delay in trial was largely attributable to the accused themselves, and that long incarceration alone cannot be the sole ground for granting bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Ahmed is accused in the case under the UAPA alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of the 2020 riots.

“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 bench said in its 37-page order Tuesday.

“A reading of the judgment passed by the apex court in K. A. Najeeb (supra) also indicates that delay cannot be the sole factor for grant of bail. It must be emphasised that in the facts of this case, majority of delay is attributable to the accused and not on the inability on the part of the prosecution to speed up the proceedings,” it added.

Ahmed, arrested on 19 June, 2020, had argued that five years in judicial custody without significant trial progress was a violation of his constitutional right to liberty. His counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.A. Najeeb, which allowed bail in cases of prolonged incarceration under the UAPA.

The HC, however, ruled that the Najeeb case does not apply where delay is caused by the accused.

A perusal of trial court records and the bail pleas of other accused showed that while some co-accused objected to arguments due to ongoing investigation, despite a consensus among the accused to streamline proceedings, arguments were repeatedly delayed.

The trial court had even expressed “distress” over these delays. The appellant himself only commenced his arguments on charges on 4 April, which was during the pendency of this (bail) appeal, the HC noted.

UAPA’s stringent rule on bail

Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail cannot be granted if accusations are found to be “prima facie true”. The HC bench reiterated that this standard makes bail an exception rather than the rule. It emphasised that long custody and delay, without examining the case’s merits, are insufficient grounds for release.

The meaning of “prima facie true” was also reiterated from the 2019 Watali case as “on the face of it, the materials must show the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. The materials/evidence must be good and sufficient to establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted by other evidence”.

The Delhi Police’s Special Cell alleges that the 2020 riots were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” hatched after Parliament passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in December 2019. According to investigators, 23 protest sites were set up in Muslim-majority areas to block roads and mobilise crowds against the law, eventually triggering the February 2020 violence that left 53 people dead.

Ahmed also faces charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and multiple sections of the UAPA, including those relating to terrorism.

In deciding his bail plea, the HC referred to its own decisions in Jagtar Singh Johal vs NIA and Nayeem Ahmad Khan vs National Investigating Agency, which held that long incarceration alone cannot be a ground for bail under UAPA, particularly for serious crimes like terrorism and anti-national activities, and the gravity of the offense must be weighed

The court further examined the status of bail applications of all other accused arrested by the Delhi Police.

While several accused, such as Kalita, Narwal and Tanha, were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021, the Supreme Court later clarified that those orders should not be treated as a precedent in other UAPA cases. Others, including former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, secured bail in 2022, but key accused like former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain remain in custody.

The High Court Tuesday also rejected the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima.

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)