Delhi HC seeks police response on Tahir Hussain’s bail plea in larger Delhi riots conspiracy case

New Delhi, June 10 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Delhi Police on a bail plea filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 riots.

A division bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Madhu Jain also sought a reply to his request for condonation of the 67‑day delay in filing an appeal against the order of a Karkardooma court dismissing his bail plea in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Posting the matter before the roster bench on July 16, the Delhi High Court recorded that Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Delhi Police, had appeared on advance notice and sought time to respond to both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay.

In its January 29 order, the Karkardooma court observed that Hussain’s earlier bail plea had already been rejected in March 2024 after recording a prima facie finding against him.

Rejecting his fresh plea, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai said that while the Supreme Court had granted bail to five co-accused, it had simultaneously declined relief to alleged key conspirators Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

The judge further observed that once a court had formed the opinion that a prima facie case existed and that the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied, “no other different opinion can be formed now by reviewing the earlier order”.

The trial court had also accepted the prosecution’s contention that there was no material change in circumstances since the rejection of Hussain’s previous bail application and that the prosecution had already demonstrated a prima facie case against him through the charge sheet and other material placed on record.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months’ interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Last month, the Delhi High Court granted bail to accused Salim Malik alias Munna, observing that his alleged role was that of a local-level facilitator rather than that of a key conspirator. Meanwhile, another Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on the bail plea of co-accused Athar Khan after orally observing during the hearing that WhatsApp chats placed on record prima facie indicated his active involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

Separately, Hussain is also facing trial in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the riots.

A Delhi court recently deferred till June 11 the pronouncement of its verdict in the case involving Hussain and 10 other accused. According to the prosecution, Sharma’s body was recovered from a drain in the Khajuri Khas area on February 26, 2020, a day after he went missing amid the communal violence. The prosecution has alleged that Hussain and the co-accused were part of an unlawful assembly and conspiracy that culminated in Sharma’s murder.

In March 2023, the trial court framed charges against Hussain and the other accused for offences including rioting, promoting enmity, murder and criminal conspiracy, then observing that he allegedly incited the mob to target members of the Hindu community and “not spare them”.

–IANS

pds/vd