tahir hussain case – Artifex.News

Delhi HC asks police to reply to ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain’s appeal in IB officer murder case

admin — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:41:00 +0000

Former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain. (Videograb)
| Photo Credit: ANI

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) sought response of police on a plea by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain challenging his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 riots.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan admitted the appeal and listed it for hearing on December 2 along with other connected appeals by co-convicts.

The Court also directed jail authorities to place on record the nominal roll of the convict and called for trial court records in the case.

Hussain challenged the trial court’s judgment convicting and sentencing him in the case, saying the investigation was aimed at implicating him to satisfy public anger.

The counsel for Delhi Police said the State would argue all the appeals, including Hussain’s, together.

The Bench said, “All connected appeals arising out of the same judgment are coming up on December 2. We have to assess the role of everybody. We will assess everybody’s role separately but will hear them together. It will save judicial time if heard together”.

According to the prosecution, on February 26, 2020, complainant Ravinder Kumar informed the Dayalpur police station officials that his son Ankit Sharma, who was posted in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), was missing since February 25, 2020.

He later learnt from some locals that a person’s body was dumped in the Khajuri Khas nala from the mosque of Chand Bagh pulia after being murdered.

The prosecution alleged that Sharma’s body was recovered from Khajuri Khas nala and there were 51 injuries on his body.

The trial court on July 31 sentenced Hussain and four co-convicts Nazim, Qasim, Javed and Anas to life imprisonment for the IB officer’s murder, saying the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category warranting death penalty.

Hussain contended in his appeal that “the investigation against the appellant has been tainted since the very beginning, aimed at implicating him in order to satisfy public anger. The FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed, no material investigation was carried out until March 6, 2020, that is, till the appellant was arrested in another case”.

He further alleged that the witnesses have been planted in the case and statements of genuine eyewitnesses have been manipulated and that the actual perpetrators have not been brought to book.

On July 13, the trial court had convicted all five accused for Sharma’s murder, holding that they were members of a heavily armed unlawful assembly that brutally assaulted and killed the IB officer during the communal violence.

Hussain sought setting aside of trial court’s July 13 conviction order and July 31 sentencing order, contending the trial Court has believed the statements of completely unreliable witnesses and relied upon those who did not witness the incident and completely ignored the tainted investigation, including fabrication of the complaint on which the FIR was based.

Hussain was convicted under IPC sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 153A (promoting enmity) and 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).

The prosecution had vehemently sought death penalty for all the five accused, saying they fell to the “level of being animals” while relentlessly assaulting Sharma.

The trial court did not award death penalty, saying the prosecution failed to establish that they had such a violent disposition or criminal propensity that their continued existence, even in prison, would pose a menace to society.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.

Published – September 02, 2026 02:09 pm IST

Source link

No Bail For Tahir Hussain, Ex-AAP Leader And Delhi Riots Case Accused

admin — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 08:40:19 +0000

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.

Source link