Supreme Court Declines To Relax Shadab Ahmed's Bail Conditions For Ghaziabad Law College, Sends Delhi Riots Accused To Trial Court

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi noted that the condition confining Ahmed to Delhi itself contemplated travel outside the city with the prior permission of the trial court. After the Bench expressed unwillingness to interfere at this stage, Ahmed's counsel sought to withdraw the application, and it was withdrawn with liberty to raise the requests before the trial court.

Ahmed's counsel informed the Bench that his client had secured admission to a law college in Ghaziabad and had also applied for the three-year law course at Delhi University. Classes, the Court was told, run from 10 am to 3 pm, and Ahmed wished to attend them and return home the same day.

Counsel submitted that Ahmed was trying to reform himself and pursue his education. Because the college is in Ghaziabad, outside the National Capital Territory, he would have to travel beyond Delhi on every working day. Counsel therefore sought relaxation of the condition requiring Ahmed to remain within Delhi.

The Bench turned to the terms of the condition itself. It noted that the condition requires Ahmed to reside within Delhi and bars him from travelling beyond its limits without the prior permission of the trial court, and that any request for such permission must disclose the reasons for it and is to be considered by the trial court on its merits.

On perusal of the order, the Court said that the relief Ahmed sought did not call for a change in the bail order at all. The mechanism for travel outside Delhi was already built into the condition, and it vested the decision in the trial court.

Justice Aravind Kumar repeatedly asked counsel to approach the trial court for relief under the existing conditions.

Counsel, however, contended that a separate condition stood on a different footing. Under it, Ahmed is required to report to the Delhi Police Crime Branch twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays, between 10 am and noon. He also argued that this condition could be modified only by the Supreme Court itself, and sought a reduction in the reporting requirement to once a week.

The reporting window on those two days overlaps with the class timings of 10 am to 3 pm that counsel had placed before the Bench.

Additionally, the counsel referred to an earlier order passed in the case of co-accused Meeran Haider, submitting that similar relief had been granted to him on September 25. Counsel argued that Ahmed was similarly placed and sought the same limited relaxation.

The Bench did not agree to modify either condition at this stage and directed counsel to approach the trial court.

Counsel then sought permission to withdraw the application so that Ahmed could pursue relief before the trial court, with liberty to raise the relevant requests there. The application was withdrawn on those terms.

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 incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and injuring thousands.