Read Time: 04 minutes
The court 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
A Delhi Court, recently, rejected a petition filed by Tahir Hussain seeking the production of specific documents in a case involving an alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. Tahir Hussain, along with several others, faced charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai observed that Hussain's request aimed to obtain the statements of a witness, Rahul Kasana, recorded in separate rioting and money-laundering cases against Hussain.
Judge Bajpai also took into consideration the response from Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, who argued that the plea was an attempt to gather defense documents prematurely, even before charges had been framed.
The court observed that the record indicated that the case is at its initial stage, with charges yet to be framed. At this juncture, the court held that the statements sought by the applicant cannot be considered.
The court highlighted that Hussain's plea failed to clarify how the statements would benefit his defense. The court opined that it is neither necessary nor desirable to call for the witness statements as requested by the applicant.
Background:
Karkardooma Court denied bail to Tahir Hussain concerning the larger conspiracy case surrounding the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The court found reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against Hussain were prima facie accurate. Additionally, the court observed that Hussain had recently acquired a licensed revolver and a significant amount of cash, believed to have been used in the rioting.
The court emphasized that bail should be rejected if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The judge noted that the legal constraints imposed by Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA made Hussain's case unfit for bail. Furthermore, the court rejected Hussain's request for bail based on the precedent of granting bail to co-accused Ishrat Jahan, stating that gender was not a relevant factor in Hussain's case.
Case Title: Tahir Hussain v State
[Inputs: PTI]
Please Login or Register
