[Delhi Riots 2020] High Court defers hearing in Former AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain’s bail pleas in 5-different FIRs

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday deferred hearing in the bail petitions filed by Former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councilor Tahir Hussain in five FIRs registered against him at Dayalpur Police Station, in connection with the Delhi Riots 2020 case. 

Advocate Rizwan appearing for Hussain stated that it’s a part-heard matter pending for 3 years now, and everyone except me (Tahir Hussain) is on bail. However, Justice Anish Dayal adjourned the matter to February 3, 2023.

In December, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appearing for Hussain had argued that “Delhi Police have just collected whatever they got and copy-pasted it in different FIRs. Everybody is on bail except the petitioner (Tahir Hussain)”. He had argued that nobody saw Hussain using any firearms and that all the co-accused were already on bail, even the man who had been alleged of firing was also on bail.

Earlier, while objecting to the issue of a larger conspiracy in the Delhi riots being raised against Hussain, Khurshid had argued, "What is the larger conspiracy or baby Conspiracy? I'll be held responsible for what I have done". He had also argued that the pattern followed in these FIRs was a copy-paste pattern, be it witnesses, evidence, etc. He had alleged that the statements made in the concerned FIR are similar to the ones made in other FIRs.

"Really what has been done is that Hussain is the resident of that area, therefore the allegation was made that he instigated people. It has been done simply because he lives there," Khurshid had added.

Furthermore, Khurshid had informed the bench that "he (Hussain) had a licensed pistol. When the house of Hussain was searched, 100 cartridges were accounted for in 2017. Now, 64 unused were recovered from his residence, 22 used cartridges were found and others were missing. There is no allegation of the gun being used," he had told the court. 

Over the issue of his residence being in the concerned area, Khurshid had argued, "It is undisputed that Hussain's house is there in that area. Your Lordships will also hear an argument that Hussain took his family to another house and then came back to this house, but that's obvious because somebody will have to be there to protect his house."

Case Title: Tahir Hussain v. State