The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the UAPA case pertaining to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing extensive arguments from Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Ahmed, and Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad for the Delhi Police.

Advocate Pracha strongly relied on the ground of delay, contending that Ahmed has remained in custody for over five years without any progress in his trial. He submitted that he never sought a single adjournment and concluded arguments on charge within 10–15 minutes before the trial court. Despite this, his bail plea and trial have both remained pending.

He argued that the overburdened judicial system was denying the accused his right to a speedy trial, remarking:

“Forget speedy trial, my bail application is not being heard. I am compelled to give up my rights even when arguing my bail due to the burden on the system.”

Pracha further submitted that even if the High Court were to direct day-to-day trial, the same would be impractical due to the workload on trial courts.

SPP Amit Prasad opposed the plea, asserting that delay alone cannot be a standalone ground for granting bail under Section 43D(5) and (6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He cited Supreme Court rulings in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain and Vernon Gonsalves v. State of Maharashtra to bolster the argument that facts and merits must also be examined.

He warned that granting bail solely on the basis of delay could set a precedent for other co-accused to claim similar relief:

“If today, my lords are inclined to grant bail to him, it becomes very easy for others to say that I didn’t do anything and make sure that there is delay and get bail.”

He also argued that the accused cannot seek to benefit from a delay when they haven’t actively facilitated the progress of the trial.

In response to Prasad’s suggestion that all accused are part of a larger conspiracy, Justice Prasad observed:

“A person may be a part of the conspiracy. There are different forces pulling a person on different lines... One of the accused who did nothing is the poor guy waiting for things to happen—what to do about that man?”

Ahmed is one of several individuals accused under FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA. The FIR relates to an alleged premeditated conspiracy to incite the 2020 riots during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The matter, titled Tasleem Ahmed v. State, is part of a broader case in which the bail pleas of several other co-accused—including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Khalid Saifi—are currently being heard by a coordinate bench.

The Court is expected to deliver its ruling on Ahmed’s bail application after evaluating the competing arguments on delay, individual role, and the seriousness of charges under the UAPA.