Introduction:
The Delhi High Court recently delivered a crucial order in a matter connected to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, denying regular bail to former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma. The case is titled Tahir Hussain v. State, where Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the bail plea filed by the accused. This case has drawn wide public and legal attention due to the sensitive background of the riots, the brutal killing of a government officer, and the allegations of conspiracy leveled against Hussain and others. The FIR No. 65 of 2020 was lodged at Dayalpur police station based on a complaint filed by the deceased’s father. Ankit Sharma, who was serving with the Intelligence Bureau, had gone missing during the riots, only to be later found dead in a drain, with the post-mortem report indicating 51 injuries inflicted through sharp-edged weapons and blunt force. While Hussain has been in custody for over five years, his bail applications have repeatedly been dismissed by courts, including the trial court and now the High Court.
The petitioner, Tahir Hussain, a former Councillor of the Aam Aadmi Party, is facing multiple charges, including murder and conspiracy, for his alleged involvement in the killing of Ankit Sharma during the 2020 riots. His counsel team comprised Senior Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Tara Narula, Shivangi, Hamendra, Sonal, and Shreya Sharma. On the other side, the State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair and Advocate Dhruv Pandey, who opposed the bail plea. The complainant in the FIR is the father of the deceased Ankit Sharma, who alleged that Hussain and his associates had conspired and executed the killing of his son.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The defense strongly argued that Tahir Hussain has been languishing in custody for more than five years without trial being concluded, which directly impinges on his right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. They submitted that prolonged incarceration without conviction should not be used as a substitute for punishment, especially when the trial court has already taken a substantial amount of time in framing charges and proceeding with evidence.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there has been no material change in circumstances since the earlier bail rejection, but the very fact of continued detention for five years without conclusion of the trial itself qualifies as a material change. They also emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing several Supreme Court precedents where courts have upheld that the right to liberty cannot be indefinitely curtailed pending trial.
The defense further contended that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is primarily circumstantial and that there is no direct evidence linking Hussain to the act of murdering Ankit Sharma. They questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the allegations of conspiracy are speculative. They further argued that Hussain has deep roots in society, being an elected representative at the time, and therefore, there is no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with evidence. His legal team maintained that the stringent charges do not automatically disqualify him from seeking bail and that he has cooperated throughout the investigation.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by SPP Rajat Nair, forcefully opposed the bail plea. They submitted that the nature of the crime was grave, brutal, and had a direct impact on public order during a period of widespread communal riots in the capital. The murder of Ankit Sharma was not an isolated act but allegedly part of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by Hussain and his associates, intended to inflame communal passions.
The prosecution highlighted that the post-mortem report revealed 51 injuries on the deceased, inflicted by both sharp-edged weapons and blunt force, indicating a heinous and brutal attack that was premeditated and carried out by a group acting in concert. They argued that Hussain was the mastermind who facilitated the assembly of rioters, provided logistical support, and incited violence.
The State also contended that granting bail to Hussain at this stage could lead to intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, and even recurrence of law-and-order disturbances. They submitted that the seriousness of the charges, including murder under Section 302 IPC, criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, and offences relating to unlawful assembly and rioting, outweighed the considerations of prolonged incarceration. They also referred to the trial court’s rejection of bail, which found no material change in circumstances to warrant release.
The prosecution stressed that public interest and the gravity of the crime must be given paramount importance in deciding bail applications in cases of such magnitude. They pointed out that bail is a matter of judicial discretion and not an absolute right, particularly when the accusations involve acts of terror and brutality during riots.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna carefully considered the submissions from both sides and the record of the case. The Court acknowledged the arguments regarding prolonged incarceration but emphasized that the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence had to be weighed against the right to liberty.
The Court observed that the allegations against Hussain were not merely of passive participation but of active involvement in orchestrating violence that led to the gruesome killing of Ankit Sharma. The FIR, supported by witness statements and material collected during investigation, pointed towards his role as a key conspirator. The bench noted that Ankit Sharma had been brutally assaulted with multiple injuries, a fact corroborated by the post-mortem report. The brutality of the act itself made the offence extremely serious, and the Court held that the gravity of such charges cannot be overlooked while considering bail.
Further, the Court reiterated the principle that the grant of bail depends on multiple factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the nature of evidence, the possibility of tampering with witnesses, and the impact on society. In cases involving serious crimes like murder during riots, courts are bound to adopt a cautious approach. The bench found that Hussain’s detention, though prolonged, was justified in light of the gravity of the offence and the need to ensure a fair trial.
The Court also rejected the argument that there was no direct evidence, observing that conspiracy and unlawful assembly cases are often proved through circumstantial evidence and collective acts of the accused. It emphasized that the trial court had already framed charges under multiple sections, including 302 IPC and 120B IPC, after finding prima facie material against Hussain. Thus, at the stage of bail, a detailed evaluation of evidence was not appropriate.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for grant of bail, considering the seriousness of the crime, the weight of evidence against him, and the potential threat to public order. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
Significance of the Ruling:
This ruling once again underscores the judiciary’s cautious stance in cases involving grave communal violence and murder. While the courts continue to affirm the right to liberty and speedy trial, they also highlight that such rights must be balanced against the gravity of offences and public interest. The decision in this case reinforces the principle that bail is not to be granted mechanically, particularly where there are strong allegations of conspiracy and involvement in brutal killings during riots.
The denial of bail to Hussain, despite his prolonged custody, highlights the judiciary’s recognition of the seriousness of riot-related offences and its attempt to send a strong signal regarding accountability in communal violence cases. At the same time, it raises important questions about balancing personal liberty with societal interest in situations where trials are delayed for years.