New Delhi:

Delhi Police received a rap on its knuckles Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard an interim bail plea by Tahir Hussain, the ex-Aam Aadmi Party leader who allegedly planned and instigated violence during riots in the city in 2020, and faces multiple charges, including those relating to money laundering.

Mr Hussain – now with Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen – had sought temporary release to campaign for himself for next month’s Delhi Assembly election.

The plea, filed after the Delhi High Court turned him down, was rejected after a two judge-bench – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Pankaj Mithal – returned a split verdict; Justice Amanullah was in favour, but Justice Mithal was not. A larger bench is now expected to hear the case.

In hearing the plea, Justice Amanullah had tough questions for the police, demanding to know why the cops, who opposed the bail plea, failed to question even a handful of witnesses in five years.

“This is a matter of life and liberty… that is why we have listed day-to-day hearings (of this case)…” Justice Amanullah said, “You are right, Mr Raju (Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the police) on points of law… (but) why have you not completed trial in five years?”

‘We Can’t Shut Our Eyes To…’

“Why could Delhi Police not examine five witnesses in the last five years? We can’t shut out eyes to this fact… that you examined only four witnesses in the last five years…” Justice Amanullah thundered.

He also pointed out the original chargesheet – which includes charges relating to the murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer, Ankit Sharma – had been filed in June 2020.

“All this has to be looked at… you can’t castigate somebody like this! He has not been out of jail even for a day in five years. I will have to write on this also (in my order). We can’t shut our eyes (to this)…. What is Article 21 of the Constitution (on the right to personal liberty) for?” the judge asked.

Justice Amanullah also pointed out that Mr Hussain made a call to the Police Control Room on the day of the riots. “… not just that he made a call. Your (the police’s) chargesheet records he sought help. Five years of these allegations… five years. How do you get over that?”

“You don’t examine your star witnesses for 5 years! We refrain from commenting further.”

“Undertrial For Five Years”

Earlier, Mr Hussain’s counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, had lamented the apparent lackadaisical efforts of the police in this matter. “Two eye-witnesses turned hostile and the fifth, they (the police) say is not in Delhi and that they don’t know when he will turn up…”

“I have been an undertrial for five years,” he said, pointing out the prosecution had, and continues to rely on, a complaint under anti-terror law UAPA to continue to detain his client. “But charges are not framed in that case… State has not completed its duty and am only asking for 15 days’ bail.”

Mr Hussain’s arguments also included references to bail for AAP boss Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested in the alleged liquor policy scam, and then granted interim bail for the Lok Sabha election.

READ | Kejriwal Gets Bail After 6 Months, Can’t Go to Office Or Sign Files

There was also a reference to Mr Kejriwal’s deputy, Manish Sisodia, who had been arrested in the same case and was released after the Supreme Court criticised the Enforcement Directorate.

READ | “Travesty Of Justice”: Sisodia Gets Bail, Supreme Court Slams Delay

“In Manish Sisodia case court said that if there is delay in trial (and there is) long incarceration… even without getting into twin conditions (the thresholds for release) bail can be granted.”

To all of this, however, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the police, said, “Don’t compare Tahir with Kejriwal. He (the latter) was National Convenor of a national party… that was what the court said when given bail for campaigning. This petitioner was only a councillor.”

Mr Kejriwal’s case cannot, therefore, be used as a precedent in Tahir’s case, Mr Rao said.

But No Bail For Tahir Hussain

The hard questions for the Delhi Police aside, Mr Hussain was eventually denied interim bail after the second judge on the bench, Justice Pankaj Mithal, disagreed with the AIMIM leader’s plea.

Justice Mithal argued there is no fundamental right guaranteeing Mr Hussain’s ability to participate in or campaign for an election. “The petitioner is an Indian citizen… and his rights as a citizen are to be respected. But, as he is involved in 11 cases, his bonafides as a citizen gets diluted.”

He also argued that allowing Mr Hussain to be released now, for election campaigning, would “open the floodgates”, referring to other prisoners who might seek a similar release for election purposes.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the bail plea of four accused in the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the northeast Delhi riots in 2020.

Shifa Ur Rehman, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Mohd Saleem Khan are accused in the larger conspiracy of Delhi riots case registered under the stringent anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI) President Shifa Ur Rehman, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan and student activist Gulfisha Fatima have sought bail on the grounds of parity with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who are already on bail granted by the Delhi High Court.

A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain reserved the order after hearing submissions of counsels for accused persons as well as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad.

While opposing the bail pleas, SPP Amit Prasad argued that the accused can not claim parity because the orders of the High Court granting bail to Natasha, Devangana and Asif can’t be treated as precedent, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

He also submitted that if the accused persons seek parity with the accused persons, then the court has to see parity with the role of Umar Khalid, whose bail was dismissed by the High Court and this order has reached finality.

SPP Amit Prasad also submitted that the bar under 43 (D) is also applicable in this case under UAPA. He also said that there are protected witnesses who stated the role of the accused persons behind the conspiracy that caused riots.

He said that there were 58 protected witnesses and urged the court to order a day-to-day hearing.

However, the court rejected the submission and said that only one case should be heard on priority.

While arguing for Shifa Ur Rehman, senior advocate Salman Khurshid argued that there are no allegations of terrorist activity. There are allegations of protest.

He argued that any form of protest, chakka jaam, can not be called a terrorist activity under UAPA and such a conclusion would go against the foundation of the jurisprudence of liberty in the country.

Senior advocate Sushil Bajaj appeared for Gulfisha Fatima and argued that her alleged role is less serious than that of Natasha.

During the hearing, the SPP informed the court that a supplementary charge may be filed as certain FSL examinations are pending. The result can only be filed by way of a supplementary charge sheet.

The trial court has also filed a status of proceeding of the riots cases.

On February 29, the High Court asked the Delhi Police to clarify whether the investigation into the Delhi riot’s larger Conspiracy 2020 case is complete or if they are going to file more supplementary charge sheets.

The High Court had raised the question while hearing the bail plea of Abdul Khalid Saifi, founder of United Against Hate (UAH).

As of now, one main charge and four supplementary charge sheets have been filed by Delhi Police in this case.

An application moved by Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita is pending before the trial court against the commencement of arguments on charge without an investigation being completed.

On February 6, 2024, the High Court asked Delhi Police to show material against Saifi to show that he was involved in the violence. The high court had also rapped Delhi Police for lengthy arguments.

The bench asked the SPP to file a compilation defining the accused’s role.

The High Court is hearing the appeals related to the denial of bail to the accused booked under UAPA. Delhi police booked Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain and other accused in this case.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)