NEW DELHI: The Delhi HC on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the UAPA case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
A division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing arguments from Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Ahmed, and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad for the Delhi Police.
Pracha, in submissions made over two days, stressed that Ahmed has remained in custody for five years despite not causing any delay in the trial. He told the court that Ahmed never took even a single adjournment and concluded his arguments on charge in just 10–15 minutes.
Responding to this, SPP Amit Prasad argued that mere delay in trial cannot by itself justify bail under Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He contended that the facts of the case must be considered and referred to relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Prasad also submitted that interim relief cannot be granted while hearing an appeal against a trial court’s bail denial unless there are exceptional circumstances.
When Prasad claimed that Ahmed could not be separated from the broader conspiracy, Justice Prasad reflected aloud, questioning the fate of an accused who may have played a minimal role and has been left waiting endlessly. “There are different accused. One of them who may have done nothing is still waiting for things to move. What about that man?” he remarked.
Prasad warned that granting bail solely on grounds of delay could set a precedent. “It will become simple for others to claim they did nothing, let delay happen, and then demand bail,” he said. “You haven’t delayed the trial, but you haven’t facilitated it either. Can someone benefit for not participating actively in the process?” he asked. In rebuttal, Pracha said, “Trial judges aren’t supercomputers. Even if your lordships pass such an order, it won’t be feasible.”