The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the bail petition of Tasleem Ahmed, accused of the larger conspiracy leading to riots in the North-East region of Delhi in 2020.
The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from both parties.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Ahmed, on Tuesday made arguments on the grounds of delay in the trial, saying that he did not take even a single day’s adjournment before the trial court and concluded arguments on charge on a single day within 10-15 minutes. Yet, he had been languishing in jail for the past five years.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, SPP Amit Prasad today submitted that delay alone could not be a reason for the grant of bail while dealing with Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court verdict in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Mohd. Hussain and Vernon vs State of Maharashtra, Prasad said facts could not be divorced when bail was sought on the grounds of delay.
He further submitted that interim bail could not be granted by the High Court while hearing an appeal rejecting the grant of bail by the trial court, in absence of emergent reasons.
Prasad said Ahmed, as an accused, could not divert himself from the overall conspiracy. If bail was granted to the petitioner on the grounds of delay alone, then it would become very easy for other co-accused to get relief on the same ground.
Pracha then said that even if the Court passed an order for a day-to-day trial, it would not be possible for the trial courts to do so due to the workload. They were not supercomputers, they were judges.
Forget Ahmed’s right to speedy trial, even his bail plea had not been adjudicated. The petitioner was compelled to give up his rights even when arguing for bail due to the burden. This was the effect of over-burdening of the system. If Ahmed took even one adjournment, his bail may be cancelled, added Pracha.