2020 Delhi Riots Case: Court Denies Interim Bail To Tahir Hussain, Orders Surgery Within 15 Days

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Court passed the order while hearing Hussain’s plea seeking one-month interim bail on medical grounds.

Hussain, who has been in judicial custody since April 6, 2020, had sought interim bail from March 20 to April 20, citing an inguinal hernia that requires surgical intervention and post-operative care.

While declining bail, the Court disposed of the application with specific directions to the authorities. “Considering these facts and circumstances, the application at hand is disposed of… the surgery of the applicant, as required, shall be conducted within 15 days from today, unless some medical complications result in delay,” the Court ordered.

The Court further directed that Hussain be provided adequate post-operative care both in the hospital and in jail, in accordance with medical advice.

During the hearing, Hussain’s counsel argued that delays in hospital visits and diagnostic procedures, owing to an overburdened system, had prevented timely treatment. It was also urged that he be allowed to undergo surgery at a hospital and with a doctor of his choice.

The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, contending that Hussain’s condition was stable and not life-threatening. It was submitted that the surgery in question was elective in nature and did not warrant interim bail.

Taking note of medical reports, the Court observed that Hussain was suffering from an uncomplicated hernia and was being managed through conservative treatment. It noted that no immediate complications had been reported that would necessitate urgent surgical intervention. “Surgery of the applicant is an elective surgery which the accused/applicant can choose as and when he requires,” the Court said.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that delays had occurred in facilitating medical examinations and that no fixed timeline for surgery had been set. Emphasising the right of an accused to access medical treatment, the Court observed that merely because a surgery is elective, it cannot be denied altogether.

“Merely because a person has been advised surgery… the said person cannot be denied his right to exercise that option,” the Court added.

However, given the seriousness of the allegations against Hussain in the riots case, the Court declined to grant interim bail and instead sought assurances from the State regarding timely medical care.

The prosecution undertook that the surgery would be conducted at the earliest. Recording this assurance, the Court directed that the procedure be completed within 15 days, subject to medical feasibility.

Hussain is an accused in a case registered at Dayalpur Police Station in connection with the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

The Court had observed that while the Supreme Court, in its January 5, 2026 order, granted bail to five co-accused persons, it simultaneously rejected bail pleas of other accused allegedly identified as key conspirators. In these circumstances, the trial court said it could not take a different view on Hussain’s case. “The most important aspect before the Court now is that this Court has already dismissed the earlier bail application of the applicant… giving finding that the allegations against the applicant are prima-facie true,” the Court noted. It further held that despite the Supreme Court’s order granting relief to certain co-accused, the earlier judicial finding against Hussain continued to operate.

Previously, in September 2025, Hussain was denied bail by High Court in another case, where he has been accused of the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The case pertains to a FIR registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the basis of the complaint made by Ankit Sharma’s father, Ravinder Kumar. He alleged that on February 25, 2020, his son, who was posted in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), had come back from the office and gone out, and did not return after a long time. The complainant father came to know from local boys that his son Ankit Sharma had been “thrown” into Khajuri Khas “nala” (drain) from the masjid in Chand Bagh pulia after “he was killed.” His body was recovered from the nala.

While framing charges, the Court had observed that Tahir Hussain played the role of “an instigator to kill Hindus” and “exhorted the mob” to “not spare Hindus”. “He instigated the mob when Ankit came forward towards this mob. The conspiracy need not be specific to kill Ankit. When the accused persons were acting in pursuance to conspiracy and common object to kill Hindus, it covered killing of Ankit as well for the reasons that Ankit was killed because he was Hindu”, the Court had said. The court in its 39-page order stated that Tahir was continuously acting in a manner of “supervising” and “motivating” this mob, all these things were done to “target Hindus” and every member of the mob assembled there participated in achieving the “objective of targeting Hindus”. “Such conducts of the members of this mob, show that they were acting out of the meeting of their mind and with a clear-cut objective in mind, to kill and harm Hindus. Thus, a criminal conspiracy to indulge in riot and to kill Hindus and harm properties of Hindus is well reflected from the evidence on the record”, the Court had observed.