Read Time: 09 minutes
Tahir Hussain, a politician of the Aam Aadmi Party and sitting councillor in East Delhi Municipal Corporation had allegedly played a pivotal role in the riots. His younger brother, Shah Alam was also arrested. Hussain’s licensed pistol, which he used during the riots, was seized during the investigation.
The Delhi High Court, recently, reserved its order on the petition filed by AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain, who sought the quashing of a second FIR in connection with a broader criminal conspiracy related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Hussain requested the dismissal of one FIR and requested the prosecution to file it instead as a supplementary chargesheet contending that two FIRs, which stemmed from the same incident but differed in location, were being tried simultaneously in the trial court with overlapping witnesses
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad recorded the arguments, reserved its order, and directed the parties to submit their written statements within 15 days.
Advocates Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma, representing Hussain, proposed that the prosecution be allowed to file a supplementary chargesheet within the existing chargesheet of the first FIR, thereby requesting the cancellation of the second FIR and its proceedings.
In opposition, the prosecution argued that submitting a supplementary chargesheet would effectively mean re-investigating the first FIR, which was not legally permissible. The first FIR was registered on February 24, 2020, and the second FIR on February 27, 2020.
Background:
In April 2024, the Karkardooma Court denied bail noting that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against Hussain were prima facie true. The court also noted that Hussain had recently obtained a licensed revolver and a significant amount of cash, allegedly used in the riots.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie accurate. It pointed out that the legal restrictions imposed by Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA rendered Hussain's case ineligible for bail. Additionally, the court rejected Hussain's request for bail based on the precedent of co-accused Ishrat Jahan being granted bail, stating that gender was not a relevant factor.
Later, Hussain approached the court seeking the defense witness statement, arguing it would aid in forming his defense arguments. However, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad contended that the plea was an attempt to gather defense documents prematurely, even before charges had been framed. The court noted that the case was at its initial stage, with charges yet to be framed. The court also remarked that Hussain's plea did not clarify how the statements would benefit his defense and opined that it was neither necessary nor desirable to call for the witness statements as requested.
In December 2023, Hussain sought a stay on proceedings in a money laundering case until charges were framed in another case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court rejected Hussain's plea, emphasizing that charges in the ED case had been framed in January of the same year. The court noted that the ED and Delhi Police had independently investigated the two separate cases.
On July 2023, the High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal granted bail to former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain in five FIRs registered against him at Dayalpur Police Station in connection with the Delhi Riots 2020 case.
In September 2023, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court granted bail to Hussain. It was noted that many witnesses were common to all three FIRs pertaining to the same set of facts, and the High Court had appreciated the merits of the case in two of those FIRs. The ASJ reasoned, ‘This material change in circumstances itself becomes a ground to grant bail to the accused/applicant in this case as well’.
The Supreme Court, in Febuary 2023, had denied petition filed by Tahir Hussain challenging the money laundering charges filed against him. A division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal observed that since the case was only at the stage of framing of the charges, the court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Additionally, in December 2022, the Karkardooma Court had determined that Hussain and ten others accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi Riots case had an ‘objective to harm Hindus in their body and property’. The judge noted that several people had gathered at Hussain's residence, some armed with firearms and that petrol bombs and stones had been prepared and stored at his house, specifically targeting Hindus.
Please Login or Register
