On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case. Ahmed had argued that his over five years of incarceration as an undertrial amounted to a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Ahmed, arrested on June 19, 2020, contended through his counsel that the trial had not commenced despite the prosecution indicating plans to examine hundreds of witnesses. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.A. Najeeb, his defence argued that prolonged custody, even under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), should tilt the balance in favour of bail.
The Solicitor General and the Special Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, stressing that the delays cited by Ahmed were not due to the State. They pointed out that co-accused such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, already on bail, had repeatedly sought adjournments, while others in custody, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, also pressed for delays.
The prosecution argued that the defence was attempting to “game the system” by causing adjournments and later using those very delays as grounds for bail. They contended that the K.A. Najeeb precedent does not apply when delays are self-inflicted.
A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the prosecution’s position. After reviewing trial court records, the judges found that repeated adjournments had indeed been sought by the accused, despite earlier assurances to proceed with arguments.
Citing the trial court’s “distress” recorded in October 2024, the High Court observed: “The inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant, is not due to inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court… the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial.”
The Bench further warned: “Speedy trial is a fundamental right. But to ask for bail after there has been systematic delay on the part of the accused is not acceptable. Otherwise, the statute restricting bail in such cases can be easily circumvented.”
The court noted that Ahmed himself began pressing arguments on charge only in April 2025, long after filing his bail appeal.
Reiterating the Supreme Court’s Watali ruling, the High Court stressed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and only if accusations do not appear “prima facie true.”
The court held that long custody alone is insufficient, given the serious allegations of conspiracy and terrorism against Ahmed. “Liberty cannot override the gravity of offences linked to terrorism and conspiracy against the State,” the Bench said.
Ahmed is Accused No. 12 in FIR 59/2020, the principal case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. He faces charges under the IPC, Arms Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and UAPA provisions.
According to the prosecution, the riots were a “deep-rooted conspiracy” designed to coincide with the visit of the then US President Donald Trump, leading to the deaths of 53 people, injuries to hundreds, and widespread destruction.
The case has multiple high-profile accused, including student activists, organisers of protest sites, and political figures. Many are already out on bail, but Ahmed remains in custody alongside others like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
While acknowledging that liberty is fundamental, the court highlighted that constitutional guarantees cannot be turned into loopholes by those accused of conspiracy against the State.
