Today, On 21st January, The Supreme Court raised questions about denying bail to Tahir Hussain in one case, despite bail being granted in nine similar cases. Hussain is accused in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the February 2020 riots in Delhi. The court emphasized the need for consistency in granting bail. This case is a key focus in the ongoing investigation into the riots.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi Police regarding the denial of bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in a single case linked to the Delhi riots, despite him being granted bail in nine other similar cases.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the prosecution to explain why interim or regular bail should not be granted to Hussain.
Justice Amanullah noted,
“We have heard on merits and if we are persuaded, why cannot we grant interim bail and if not, regular bail? In all other nine cases where he faces the same allegations, he has been granted bail; then why not in this one?”
The court was reviewing a plea from Hussain seeking interim bail to participate in the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as a candidate for the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). The Delhi High Court had previously denied him relief.
Hussain is implicated in the case regarding the death of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 riots in Delhi and has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020.
In his petition, he requested interim bail from January 14 to February 9 to fulfill election-related tasks, such as filing nominations and campaigning. He argued that despite being an accused in nine other riot-related cases, he had secured bail in all except the case involving Sharma’s death.
The Delhi High Court had instead allowed him custody parole to file his nomination papers under strict conditions, including prohibitions on phone access and interactions with anyone except election officials.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Agarwal, representing Hussain, emphasized that he had no prior cases against him until the incidents in Delhi, and pointed out that main assailants had been granted regular bail after three years of custody.
Justice Mithal, however, expressed skepticism about granting interim bail for the elections.
He remarked,
“You were granted custody parole. Out of 11 cases, in 9 you were granted bail. Now you want to contest elections; that’s why parole was granted to file your nomination… but how can bail be granted?”
The bench then inquired why Hussain was pursuing interim bail instead of focusing on a case for permanent bail.
Indicating a lack of inclination to grant interim bail but openness to discuss regular bail. The court said,
“Why are you insisting on interim bail as if elections are the only thing left to be done in life?”
Advocate Rajat Nair, representing the prosecution, affirmed their willingness to facilitate Hussain’s custody parole and requested additional time for further instructions, which the bench granted.
The court concluded,
“On the joint request of parties, list it for tomorrow. Please come prepared. Time for interim bail is expiring. Please mention it tomorrow morning and we will take it up anytime tomorrow,”