New Delhi, Feb 11 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the 2020 city riots “larger conspiracy case”, challenging the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to grant him bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale sought a response from the Delhi Police on Ahmed’s special leave petition (SLP) assailing the September 2, 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the trial court’s order rejecting his third regular bail application.

The matter is likely to be listed on April 6, 2026, according to the computer-generated case status reflected on the apex court’s website.

Ahmed has been in judicial custody since June 24, 2020, after being arrested by the Crime Branch in connection with the violence that broke out in North-East Delhi between February 23 and 25, 2020, during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

He is facing charges under various provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA.

According to the prosecution, he was part of a larger conspiracy to incite and orchestrate the riots in areas including Jafrabad, Maujpur, Chand Bagh and Gokulpuri.

Ahmed has contended that he merely opposed the CAA and was arrested on allegations of terrorism.

Apart from him, other accused in the alleged larger conspiracy case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and others.

In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court had held that bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial.

A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that “factors such as long incarceration or delay in trial cannot be taken as sole factors for the grant of bail without considering the gravity of the offence or the role played by the accused.”

Rejecting Ahmed’s plea that he had been in custody for over five years without commencement of trial, the Delhi High Court said that the delay in arguments on charge was largely attributable to the accused persons themselves. It recorded that despite directions for day-to-day hearing, counsels for the accused were “not ready to address arguments”, and warned that “any delay will be viewed by the court seriously.”

The Delhi High Court further held that, except in cases of “palpable violation of fundamental rights”, bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be granted merely on the ground of long incarceration, especially when the accused has not pressed arguments on the merits of the case.

Last month, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of co-accused Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the same case, holding that the prosecution material, taken cumulatively, disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

However, the apex court granted bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — while declining relief to Imam and Khalid.

The Delhi Police has alleged that several student activists and others were involved in a premeditated conspiracy to incite violence during the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured, timing the protests to coincide with the visit of then US President Donald Trump in order to attract international attention.

–IANS

pds/uk