2020 Delhi Riots: Supreme Court Seeks State’s Response In Tasleem Ahmed's Bail Plea

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale issued notice to the State while hearing Ahmed’s challenge to the denial of bail by the other courts.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha and AoR RHA Sikander appeared for Ahmed.

The matter arises out of FIRs registered in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in parts of Delhi in February 2020, leading to the loss of lives and extensive damage to property.

During the brief hearing, the Bench indicated that it would examine the materials placed on record after the State files its response. The Court accordingly directed the prosecution to place its stand on the bail request and the status of the trial.

The case has been listed for further consideration after the State files its reply.

Notably, on September 2, 2025, the High Court had rejected the bail plea of Ahmed. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. The court had said, “The appeal is dismissed.”

Tasleem Ahmed was first arrested in April 2020 in an unrelated case. He was later re-arrested in FIR No. 59/2020, the Delhi Police Special Cell’s “larger conspiracy” case linked to the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

According to the Special Cell, Ahmed was accused of mobilising local women at the Jafrabad Metro Station and blocking the road, an event that allegedly sparked violence in Northeast Delhi. His name surfaced during the investigation as one of the alleged conspirators, based on statements by protected witnesses.

The High Court had reserved its verdict on July 9 after hearing arguments from Advocate Mehmood Pracha on behalf of Ahmed and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad for the Delhi Police. Pracha argued that his client has spent five years in custody without causing any delay in the trial. He stressed that Ahmed never sought an adjournment and concluded his arguments on the charge within 10–15 minutes.

In response, SPP Amit Prasad had countered that mere delay in the trial cannot justify bail under Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, adding that the case must be assessed on its own facts while also citing relevant Supreme Court rulings.

Other than Ahmed, there are nearly seventeen accused in the case. FIR No. 59 of 2020 names several individuals, including Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal.

The accused have been charged under stringent provisions of the UAPA as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity, rioting, and murder.

The case stems from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act led to large-scale stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and thousands injured.

Parallel proceedings continue before the trial court, which is currently at the stage of arguments on the charge.

The prosecution maintains that the violence was not a spontaneous outburst but a pre-planned conspiracy aimed at destabilising the government during a politically sensitive period. It alleges that the accused persons were among the main conspirators behind the Delhi riots. The accused, however, deny these charges, asserting that they were merely exercising their democratic right to dissent.

Importantly, on January 5, the apex court had granted bail to five co-accused persons, it simultaneously rejected bail pleas of other accused; Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, allegedly identified as key conspirators.

Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale

Hearing Date: February 11, 2026