2020 Riots| Delhi Court Denies Bail To AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain

Read Time: 04 minutes


Court noted that per the record, Tahir Hussain while participating in the conspiracy, not only funded the activities of the riots but also participated in the other activities which led to the riots

A Delhi Court denied bail to Tahir Hussain in the context of the larger conspiracy case surrounding the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, citing potential alignment with the definition of a terrorist act under the UAPA. A former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor, Tahir Hussain's bail plea was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai. The judge asserted that Hussain's actions may be construed as constituting a terrorist act under the UAPA.

The court determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against Hussain were prima facie accurate. The Bench also noted that Hussain, allegedly involved in the riot's conspiracy, not only financially supported riotous activities but also actively participated in actions leading to the riots.

“Some other witnesses also gave statements against the applicant to show as to how the applicant was instigating the protesters and gathered the protesters on the roof of his house and was himself involved in throwing petrol bombs etc. on the public”, the court added. 

Witnesses testified against Hussain, detailing his role in inciting protesters, gathering them on his rooftop, and actively engaging in violent acts such as throwing petrol bombs. Moreover, the court highlighted that Hussain had recently acquired a licensed revolver and a significant amount of cash, believed to have been used in the rioting.

Bail must be rejected as a rule if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or the case diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true”, the bench added. 

Additionally, the court rejected Hussain's bail request based on the precedent of granting bail to co-accused Ishrat Jahan, as gender was not a relevant factor in Hussain's case. Considering these factors alongside the legal constraints imposed by Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, the court deemed Hussain's case unfit for bail.

Case Title: Tahir Hussain v State