|
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked Delhi Police to file a note on the role of accused Tasleem Ahmed. He is accused in the larger Conspiracy of the Delhi riots and sought regular bail.
A division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked the Delhi Police Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad to file a short note on the particular role ascribed and foundational material against Tasleem Ahmed. The bench said that the record is voluminous, so you (Delhi Police) need a short note of his role. The matter was listed on April 8 for a hearing. Advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for Tasleem Ahmed. Another bench, headed by Justice Navin Chawla, heard senior advocate Rebecca John's rebuttal arguments for Abdul Khalid Saifi, the accused. Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi are accused along with Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Tahir Hussain and others in a larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots case of 2020. They have been booked under the anti-terror law UAPA in connection with the riots that broke out in North East Delhi in 2020. Advocate Mehmood Pracha had earlier submitted that Tasleem Ahmed's case was different from that of other co-accused persons. On February 22, 2024, the trial court dismissed his bail plea. He had sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with three co-accused, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in a larger conspiracy related to the Delhi Riots of 2020. Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted regular bail by the Delhi High Court on 15.06.2021 after the court allowed their appeals against the trial court order. Special judge Sameer Bajpai said that the earlier bail application of the accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by the predecessor court on March 16, 2022. The court held the allegations against the accused prima facie true. The court held that, hence, the embargo created by section 43D of UA(P)A applies to the grant of bail to the accused, as well as the embargo contained in section 437 CrPC. The council earlier had argued that the applicant, apart from deserving bail on merits alone, is now also entitled to be set at liberty on the grounds of parity. On the other hand, the Special public prosecutor (SPP) opposed the application. He mentioned that in the earlier bail application, the applicant had also raised grounds of parity, and this court had been pleased to deal with the said plea, and the applicant was not given any favour. (ANI)
|
