Latest news with #Pracha
New Indian Express
09-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Delhi High Court questions prolonged jail in 2020 riots conspiracy case
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the prolonged incarceration of an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case, asking the police how long a person can be kept in jail when five years have already passed since the violence. A division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the query to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad during a hearing on the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, one of the accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with FIR 59/2020. Appearing for Ahmed, Advocate Mehmood Pracha focused solely on the delay in trial, clarifying that he was not arguing on the merits of the case or seeking bail on the ground of parity with other co-accused who were granted bail earlier. 'My submissions are limited to the fact that trial proceedings have seen extraordinary delay,' he told the court. Referring to the bail granted to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in 2021, after they had spent around 14 months in custody, Pracha pointed out that Ahmed, arrested on June 24, 2020, has now completed five years in jail. He also argued that Ahmed has never sought any adjournment, unlike others. 'He has not taken a single day's adjournment. Not a single day's delay is attributable to him. In fact, he even refrained from pressing his Section 207 CrPC application and has depleted his defence,' Pracha submitted.
NDTV
09-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
"How Long One Can Be In Jail": Delhi Court Asks Cops Over 2020 Riots Case
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked Delhi Police for how long could the accused persons be kept in jail after highlighting the passage of five years and arguments on charge still not being concluded in the terror case related to the February 2020 riots. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the question to Delhi Police during the hearing of the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, accused in a case related to alleged larger conspiracy in the riots, lodged under stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). "Five years have gone by. Even arguments on the charge have not been completed. In matters like this, 700 witnesses, how much time a person can be kept inside?" the bench asked the prosecution. The court made the query after accused's advocate Mehmood Pracha raised the issue of delay in the proceedings in the case. Pracha said he will not be making submissions on the case's merit but seek relief on the ground of parity in relation to the delay in trial. He cited the examples of co-accused, Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail on the ground of delay in 2021. "He (Ahmed) was arrested on June 24, 2020... I have already spent five years (in jail)," Pracha argued. He claimed his client never caused delay in the case proceedings. Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the submission, claiming the prosecution cannot be blamed for delay in trial as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned on accused persons' request. Pracha went ahead to confine his argument on the delay in trial. The hearing would continue on July 9. Violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020 left at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured.
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC questions prolonged detention in NE riots case
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday wondered how long the prosecution can oppose bail for accused persons jailed in connection with the Feb 2020 riots that rocked northeast Delhi. During the hearing of one such case, the court asked Delhi Police how long the accused people could be kept in jail, after highlighting the passage of five years and the fact that arguments on charge were still not concluded in the terror case related to the 2020 riots. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the question to Delhi Police during the hearing of the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, accused in a case related to an alleged larger conspiracy in the riots, lodged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Ahmed, the owner of a coaching centre, is accused of being part of the larger conspiracy case in relation to the riots. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "Five years have gone by. Even arguments on charge have not completed. In matters like this, 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside?" the bench observed, pointing out the delay the trial is likely to take. The court made the query after the accused's advocate, Mehmood Pracha, raised the issue of delay in the proceedings in the case. Pracha said he won't be making submissions on the case's merit but would seek relief on the ground of parity in relation to the delay in trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One plan. Total peace of mind. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo He cited the examples of co-accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail on the ground of delay in 2021. "He (Ahmed) was arrested on June 24, 2020… I have already spent five years (in jail)," Pracha argued, seeking urgent relief. He claimed his client never caused a delay in the case proceedings. Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the submission, arguing that the prosecution cannot be blamed for the delay in trial as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned at the accused persons' request. Pracha went ahead to confine his argument to the delay in trial. The court will continue to hear arguments on July 9. The violence in northeast Delhi in Feb 2020 left at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured.
India Today
07-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Court refuses to entertain plea seeking video footage of Maharashtra Assembly polls
The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that a plea filed by a Delhi-based lawyer seeking the CCTV footage of polling booths from the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election, was of public interest as the petitioner himself was not affected by the issue and thus refused to hear it but gave liberty to convert the petition into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).advertisementThe bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor was hearing a petition filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha, seeking the entire videography, CCTV footage, and copies of Forms 17-C Part I and II related to the conduct of the 2024 General Legislative Assembly Elections in the interim, the plea requested that the Election Commission of India (ECI) be directed to preserve the CCTV footage and video recordings related to the election, which are currently in its custody. "How are you personally aggrieved? If you are not personally aggrieved, there is no personal injury, then it should have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. You are not even a voter, you are a resident of Delhi," the court asked the petitioner pointed out that in a similar case involving the election material related to the Haryana Assembly elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed the respondents in the matter to supply the material within a period of six weeks and was not further challenged by the authorities the bench only pressed the petitioner on how the issue concerned the petitioner, since he was a resident of Delhi. The bench had recently dismissed a similar petition argued by Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi leader, Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, on the issue of maintainability of the bench permitted Pracha to convert his writ petition into a PIL and then it to be listed before another appropriate plea stated that after the declaration of the results, the election material — including the videography — is kept in the custody of the District Election Officer. Furthermore, the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023 provides that such videography must be supplied upon application, either by a candidate or any other the declaration of the results of the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections, the petitioner wrote to the respondents seeking copies of the entire videography recorded during the election process, as well as Form 17-C Parts I and II for all constituencies."However, despite the mandatory provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the respondents have failed in their duty to provide the material requested by the petitioner," the plea states. Pracha submitted that he had emailed the authorities on December 11, 2024, but received no response or opposition parties have been raising issues with regard to heavy polling that took place in the Maharashtra Assembly election after 6 pm when voting ends. It is claimed that over 76 lakh votes, amounting to 6.8% of the total votes, were cast post-deadline without proper records by the Election Commission of India has said that those people who were inside the polling booths are permitted to vote as per rules and the allegations levelled were not true.- Ends
