On January 21, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the denial of bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in one of the cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots, despite him having secured bail in nine other similar cases. The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed the prosecution to clarify why neither interim nor regular bail should be granted in this instance.
Tahir Hussain, a key accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020. Among the cases against him, the most prominent is the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the riots. Sharma’s body was found in a drain near Hussain’s residence in Chand Bagh, sparking allegations of Hussain’s involvement in instigating and orchestrating violence during the anti-Hindu riots.
Hussain recently approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim bail to contest the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as a candidate from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). He sought bail from January 14 to February 9, claiming his physical presence was necessary for filing nomination papers and campaigning for the Mustafabad constituency.
On January 14, the Delhi Police strongly opposed Hussain’s bail plea, arguing that his release could compromise the integrity of the judicial process given the severity of charges against him. While the High Court denied interim bail, it allowed him custody parole under strict conditions for filing his nomination papers. These conditions included restricted communication and police supervision to prevent any misuse of his temporary release.
Unhappy with the High Court’s decision, Hussain escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking interim bail. During the hearing, his counsel argued that other accused in riot-related cases, including those with significant allegations, had been granted bail after spending three years in custody. The lawyer further questioned the continued denial of bail to Hussain in this particular case.
The bench, while scrutinizing the prosecution’s stance, questioned why Hussain remained incarcerated in this specific case despite being granted bail in nine others. The Court also expressed reservations about the necessity of interim bail, suggesting instead that the matter of regular bail should be addressed.
The prosecution sought additional time to present its arguments, prompting the Court to schedule the next hearing for the following day. Meanwhile, the bench observed that individuals like Tahir Hussain, accused of serious offenses, should ideally be barred from contesting elections, given the implications on public trust and the integrity of the democratic process.
Hussain’s legal team has maintained that his prolonged judicial custody infringes upon his right to participate in the democratic process. However, the allegations against him—ranging from orchestrating communal violence to his purported role in Sharma’s murder—have made his case highly contentious.
Comments