It’s Like We Plotted the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Over A Biryani Stall: Shadab Ahmed Before Delhi HC

During a hearing before the Delhi High Court, Shadab Ahmed—an accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots—criticised the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for its investigative approach. He contended that the agency had portrayed his involvement as though the conspiracy had been casually discussed at a local biryani stall.

The submissions were made before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur.

Senior Advocate Hariharan, appearing for Ahmed, sharply criticised the NIA’s interpretation of the statements attributed to his client. “The way the agency has presented the statements, it is as if we were eating biryani at some stall and they sat beside us while we were talking all about this and managed to hear it”, he remarked.

Emphasising the inherently clandestine nature of conspiracies, Senior Advocate Hariharan argued that such plots rarely unfold through overt or public declarations. He submitted that the statements cited in the investigation report appeared to have been extracted from casual conversations, lacking both evidentiary value and contextual clarity.

These arguments were raised in a criminal appeal filed by several individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the Northeast Delhi riots of February 2020. The prosecution has alleged that Ahmed played a key role in organising protests which eventually escalated into violent clashes on February 24, 2020.

During the recent hearing, Senior Advocate Hariharan reiterated that the statements attributed to Ahmed lacked context and specificity. He argued that the investigating agency had failed to clarify how the statements were recorded, under what circumstances they were made, or what intent—if any—they conveyed.

However, the court adjourned the proceedings near 5 PM, noting the lateness of the hour, and scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 23, 2025, in the post-lunch session.

Background:

Ahmed described himself as a 27-year-old Computer Science graduate from Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, employed as a supervisor at NDS Enterprises in Delhi’s Jagatpuri area. Shadab also claimed that he had fully cooperated with the investigation despite being threatened with arrest and was eventually taken into custody on April 6, 2020 without proper justification. It was argued that Ahmed was made to sign a blank paper and that his phone was seized but not sealed. Arguing that the evidence was unreliable, it pointed to contradictions in witness statements and the lack of clarity in the FIR, which was filed 24 hours after the incident.

The state, opposing Ahmed’s bail in previous hearings, highlighted the gravity of the case by referring to the death of Head Constable Ratan Lal and the serious injuries sustained by several police officers during the riots. It claimed that the planning took place during meetings on February 23, 2020, and that the accused used coded language to coordinate their actions. The prosecution further alleged that Ahmed had been in communication with other co-accused and had deleted mobile data relevant to the key dates.

Ahmed has been accused in three FIRs. He has been granted bail in two, except the current one, i.e. one involving larger conspiracy in Delhi Riots.

In his disclosure statement before the Police, Ahmed is said to have employed violent means in the Anti-CAA protests, including usage of weapons.

Updates In Connected Matters:

During the hearing on April 16, 2025, Sharjeel Imam argued that his inclusion in the investigation was a result of his representative role in various associations, with authorities attempting to make an example of him.

Imam's counsel, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, emphasized that while Imam served as president of several associations, no other members were implicated, suggesting he was targeted due to his position. Imam denied any unlawful actions, asserting that his role was limited to supporting protests in his capacity as a representative.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Hariharan with Advocate Kartik Purushottama Murukutla

Case Title: Shadab Ahmed v State (CRL.A. - 600/2022)