Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Delhi High Court
Bail Cannot Be Sought On Grounds Of Delay When Accused Themselves Protract Proceedings; Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Delhi Riots Case
|The Court noted that accused persons out on bail were deliberately delaying arguments on charge, to the detriment of those still in custody.
The Delhi High Court has held that bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial, especially when the accused themselves have contributed to the delay.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the rejection of bail by the Trial Court in a case arising out of the North-East Delhi riots. The appellant, in judicial custody since 2020, had sought bail on the ground of protracted trial, contending that over 700 witnesses remain to be examined and arguments on charge had not concluded.
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dismissing the bail application, observed that “...material on record indicates that certain accused persons have got bail and some of the accused persons are in prison. Those accused persons who got bail are trying to delay the arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The arguments on charge are being delayed by the accused persons who are out on bail at the cost of those accused persons who are in prison.”
Advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for the appellant. Special Public Prosecutors Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey appeared for the State.
Background
The case arose out of the violence that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020, where several instances of rioting, vandalism, and arson were reported. The appellant was arrested and charged under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and other allied laws.
Following the investigation, the prosecution filed a chargesheet alleging a larger conspiracy behind the riots. Multiple accused were implicated, with some being granted bail over time, while others, including the appellant, continued in judicial custody.
During the pendency of proceedings, the Trial Court repeatedly attempted to move forward with arguments on charge. However, adjournments were frequently sought, particularly by those accused who had already secured bail. The Trial Court eventually dismissed the appellant’s application for bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA, noting that the delays were attributable not to the Courts or the prosecution, but to the accused themselves.
Challenging this, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court contending that prolonged incarceration, coupled with the delay in trial, violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
The Court reviewed the order sheets of the Trial Court and noted that adjournments were repeatedly sought by co-accused who were already on bail, despite prior consensus to streamline the sequence of arguments. The Bench recorded its agreement with the Trial Court’s finding that delays were not attributable to the prosecution or the Court, but to the conduct of the accused themselves.
The Bench cautioned that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be invoked as a litigation tactic, observing: “To ask for bail after there has been a systematic delay in trial on the part of the accused, is not acceptable and if it is done then the statute, which restricts the grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial can easily be circumvented by delaying the trial on the one hand and by pressing bail applications on the other.”
The Bench reiterated that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates a statutory restriction on the grant of bail where prima facie allegations are supported by material. It clarified that prolonged incarceration or delay in trial, standing alone, does not entitle an accused to bail. Such considerations must be assessed together with the facts and merits of the case, and relief can only be justified when constitutional concerns under Article 21, such as denial of liberty or frustration of the right to a speedy trial, are shown to exist alongside the supporting circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the Bench underlined that courts must distinguish between delays attributable to the prosecution or systemic backlog, and those caused by the defence itself. Only the former can provide legitimate grounds for bail under Article 21; the latter cannot.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order rejecting bail, holding that the appellant was not entitled to release solely on grounds of delay, especially since the accused had not advanced arguments at the first available opportunity.
Cause Title: Tasleem Ahmed vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7659-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate Mehmood Pracha.
Respondents: Special Public Prosecutors Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey.