A Delhi Court has dismissed the regular bail application of Tahir Hussain, accused in the larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court dismissed the plea in view of the bar under UA(P)A and the role attributed to him as per the statement of witnesses.
“Thus, in view of the facts as discussed above and the bar under Section 43(D)(5) of UA(P)A, the Court does not find the case of the applicant to be a fit case for granting bail,” the court said in the order passed on March 30.
The accused was arrested based on the present FIR on April 6, 2020, in connection with the case related to the conspiracy of the North East Delhi riots of 2020. The charge sheet was filed on September 16, 2020, after the completion of the investigation.
Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheets were also filed and the matter is pending on the question whether the investigation is complete or not.
The court said that in the case in hand, after going through the record, it is of the view that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.
“As far as the role of the applicant as shown by the prosecution is concerned, the record shows that the applicant, while participating in the conspiracy, not only funded the activities of the riots but also participated in the other activities that led to the riots,” the court said.
The court further said that the statements of some prosecution witnesses as recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other material on record clearly show the role of the present applicant.
The Court also said that one of the witnesses to the prosecution is Rahul Kasana, who clearly states the role of the applicant regarding the distribution of money to the protesters in order to make preparations for the riots, meeting of the present applicant with the other co-accused persons.
“It is also on record that the applicant got his licenced revolver released just two days before the alleged incidents and used the same as 22 spent or used cartridges were recovered from his house,” it said.
Besides this, allegedly, the applicant got approximately Rs 1.5 crore in cash, which was used in the rioting and the said fact has been confirmed through the statements of different witnesses and the examination of relevant bank accounts, the court said.
Accused Tahir Hussain sought regular bail on various grounds, including that of parity with other accused persons.
It was submitted by the counsel that many co-accused persons, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal alias Tanha, Faizan Khan and Ishrat Jahan, have already been granted bail in the present FIR and as the applicant has much better case than them, he is also entitled to bail on parity as well.
Further, the order of granting bail to the co-accused persons Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal, was challenged by the State to the Supreme Court of India, but the petition of the State has been dismissed vide order dated May 2, 2023, the counsel submitted.
The court rejected the contention and said that, giving an opinion specifically about the co-accused persons, the High Court concluded that limitations and restrictions on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, do not apply. As such, it is important to note that the opinion of the High Court is with respect to the co-accused persons
It was also contended by the Counsel for the applicant that the alleged acts of the applicant cannot be termed as terrorist act and do not constitute the offences under Section 13,16, 17 & 18 of UA(P)A.
The Court said that it is not in agreement with this contention of the Counsel. Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’ as provided under Section 15 of the UA(P)A clearly shows that even if some inflammable substance, fire arms, or lethal weapons are used that are likely to cause death or injury to any person or cause loss, damage or destruction to any property, such an act would fall under the definition of a terrorist act.
“In the case in hand, the allegations against the applicant, as mentioned earlier, are such that his acts may fall under the definition of a terrorist act. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the provisions of the UA(P)A as mentioned in the charge-sheet are not applicable to the applicant,” the court held.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad opposed the bail application. He contended that the rejection of bail is a rule and to allow the bail is an exception under the UA(P)A.
The judgment as relied upon by the prosecution makes it clear that bail must be rejected as a rule if, after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or the case diary, the court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true, the court said.
“As already mentioned, in the case in hand, after going through the record, the court is of the view that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true,” the court held.
(With inputs from ANI)
