The Delhi Court has denied the standard bail request of Tahir Hussain, who is accused of involvement in the broader conspiracy of the Delhi riots under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
New Delhi, March 30: The Karkardooma Court, under the gavel of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, made a pivotal decision regarding the bail application of Tahir Hussain, who stands accused in the case concerning the conspiracy behind the North East Delhi riots of 2020. The court’s decision on March 30 was to dismiss Hussain’s plea for regular bail, citing substantial grounds under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967.
The heart of the court’s judgment lay in its reliance on the stringent provisions of the UAPA, specifically pointing to the bar under Section 43(D)(5) of the Act. This provision essentially acts as a bulwark against the granting of bail if the court, upon examination, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the individual are prima facie true. Judge Bajpai articulated,
“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.”
Tahir Hussain was apprehended on April 6, 2020, following an FIR that connected him to the orchestration of the riots, a tumultuous event that gripped the North East part of Delhi in 2020. The initial charge sheet filed on September 16, 2020, paved the way for further supplementary charge-sheets, with the court yet to decide on the completeness of the investigation.
The court meticulously reviewed the allegations against Hussain, finding them to have a strong basis prima facie. A significant facet of the prosecution’s argument was Hussain’s alleged involvement in funding the riots and participating in preparatory activities that eventually led to the outbreak of violence.
Also Read- Delhi Court Denies Bail To Tasleem Ahmed In 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case (lawchakra.in)
“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 observed.
Adding to the gravity of Hussain’s alleged involvement, witness statements, particularly from Rahul Kasana, underscored his role in financially mobilizing the rioters and coordinating with co-accused individuals. The court underscored,
“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.”
Furthermore, the court highlighted that approximately Rs 1.5 crore in cash was allegedly disbursed by Hussain for the riots, a claim substantiated by various witness statements and the examination of relevant bank accounts.
In a bid for freedom, Hussain’s legal representation argued for bail citing the precedence of bail granted to co-accused individuals like Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and others in the same FIR. They contended that Hussain’s case was more favorable than those already granted bail. However, the court remained unswayed, pointing out that the High Court’s stance on the co-accused does not dilute the restrictions imposed under Section 43D(5) of UAPA in this particular case.
The court firmly disagreed with the defense’s argument that Hussain’s actions did not constitute a terrorist act under UAPA. “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,” the court elucidated.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad’s stance was that bail should typically be denied under UAPA, reinforcing the principle that bail is an exception rather than a rule within this legislative framework.
This ruling not only underscores the rigorous judicial scrutiny applied to cases under UAPA but also highlights the complexities involved in the judicial process, especially in cases linked to national security and public order.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON DELHI RIOTS CASES
