The Delhi High Court sought Delhi Police’s response to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain’s bail appeal in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case. The appeal challenges the trial court’s refusal of bail and seeks condonation of an 87-day delay. The matter is listed for hearing on July 16.
The Delhi High Court sought the response of the Delhi Police on a bail appeal filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with the larger conspiracy case arising out of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain issued notice to the Delhi Police and granted four weeks’ time to file its response to Hussain’s appeal challenging the rejection of his bail plea by a trial court earlier this year.
The appeal not only challenges the order refusing bail but also seeks condonation of an 87-day delay in approaching the High Court. The matter has now been listed for further consideration on July 16.
Background of the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
The proceedings arise from one of the most significant criminal prosecutions linked to the communal violence that engulfed several parts of North-East Delhi in February 2020.
The riots, which erupted amid protests surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in widespread violence, loss of life, destruction of property, and injuries to hundreds of people. More than fifty persons lost their lives during the clashes, making it one of the deadliest episodes of communal violence witnessed in the national capital in recent years.
Subsequently, the Delhi Police registered a larger conspiracy case alleging that the riots were not spontaneous but were part of a pre-planned conspiracy involving several activists, political figures, and others. The investigation was conducted by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, which invoked stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) along with various offences under the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons allegedly participated in meetings, coordinated protest sites, mobilised resources, and orchestrated violence in furtherance of a larger conspiracy. The allegations have been strongly contested by the accused, who maintain that they have been falsely implicated.
Tahir Hussain, a former councillor of the Aam Aadmi Party, is among the principal accused named in the conspiracy case. The Delhi Police has alleged that Hussain was actively involved in the planning and execution of violent incidents during the riots and played a significant role in facilitating unlawful activities.
Investigators have accused him and several co-accused of participating in activities amounting to terrorism and conspiracy, leading to the invocation of provisions under the UAPA. Hussain has consistently denied the allegations and has been pursuing legal remedies seeking release on bail.
Trial Court Refuses Bail
The present appeal stems from an order passed on January 29 by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts. On that date, the trial court rejected the bail applications filed by Tahir Hussain as well as co-accused Salim Malik and Athar Khan.
While considering the plea, the Sessions Court examined the evidence and allegations relied upon by the prosecution and concluded that a prima facie case continued to exist against the accused persons.
A significant argument advanced before the trial court was that the Supreme Court had already granted bail to five co-accused in the same conspiracy case and that similar relief ought to be extended to Hussain. However, the trial court was not persuaded by this submission.
Rejecting the argument that Hussain should receive bail merely because certain co-accused had been enlarged on bail, the Sessions Court observed that it was bound by its earlier findings regarding the existence of a prima facie case.
The court specifically held:
“Now, despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the co-accused persons, when this Court has once formed the opinion that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant (Hussain), no other different opinion can be formed now by reviewing the earlier order.”
The trial court concluded that the grant of bail to other accused persons did not automatically entitle Hussain to similar relief and that the allegations against him required independent evaluation. Consequently, his bail plea was rejected.
Appeal Before the Delhi High Court
Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, Hussain has now approached the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail. His appeal challenges the findings recorded by the trial court and seeks reconsideration of the evidence and circumstances relied upon for denying him liberty.
Apart from the merits of the bail application, Hussain has also requested the High Court to condone an 87-day delay in filing the appeal. The issue of delay emerged as one of the preliminary matters during Tuesday’s hearing.
During the proceedings before the High Court, the Delhi Police pointed out that the appeal had not been filed within the prescribed period. Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju drew the Court’s attention to the delay and indicated that the issue would need consideration. The prosecution maintained that the delay was a relevant factor while deciding whether the appeal should be entertained.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Mohan, appearing on behalf of Tahir Hussain, acknowledged that there had indeed been a delay in filing the appeal. However, he submitted that the delay was not deliberate and was linked to larger legal issues currently pending before the Supreme Court in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy proceedings.
According to the defence, certain legal questions relating to the interpretation of bail principles in UAPA cases are presently under consideration before the apex court, and those developments had a bearing on Hussain’s challenge.
The submissions made before the High Court come against the backdrop of recent proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the Delhi riots conspiracy case. On January 5, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused persons connected with the conspiracy case. However, the apex court declined to grant similar relief to two other prominent accused, namely Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Subsequently, on May 22, another Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred certain important legal questions to a larger Bench. These questions concern the correctness of earlier judicial findings relating to the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the provisions of the UAPA.
The reference has attracted considerable attention because it may have broader implications for bail jurisprudence in cases involving anti-terror legislation. It is this development that Hussain’s counsel relied upon while explaining the delay in approaching the High Court.
After hearing the preliminary submissions from both sides, the Delhi High Court decided to seek a formal response from the Delhi Police. The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the investigating agency to file its reply to Hussain’s appeal as well as his application seeking condonation of delay.
The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the bail plea at this stage and confined itself to issuing notice and fixing a schedule for further proceedings. The matter will now come up for consideration on July 16.
The Delhi High Court has initiated consideration of former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain’s challenge to the rejection of his bail plea in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. While granting the Delhi Police four weeks to file its response, the Court has also taken note of Hussain’s request for condonation of an 87-day delay in filing the appeal.
With significant legal questions concerning bail under the UAPA currently pending before the Supreme Court, the proceedings assume added importance. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 16, when the High Court is expected to examine both the issue of delay and the merits of Hussain’s claim for release on bail.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE