Northeast Delhi riots: court denies bail to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain

Suspended AAP councillor Tahir Hussain.   | Photo Credit: -

A Delhi court on Thursday denied bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in three different FIRs related to the northeast Delhi riots, noting that he used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said that the public witnesses against Mr. Hussain were residents of the same locality and if released on bail at this stage, the possibility of him threatening or intimidating them could not be ruled out.

The court also rejected Mr. Hussain’s contention that he be treated at parity with other co-accused persons in the cases who had been enlarged on bail. It said that the role assigned to Mr. Hussain in the cases was totally different and distinct from the rest of the co-accused, as he was the “main kingpin/conspirator in the case”.

The judge noted that at the time of the eruption of the communal riots, Mr. Hussain had been in a powerful position (sitting AAP Councillor of the area).

‘No cogent evidence’

Mr. Hussain, who had been in judicial custody since March 16, argued that there was no cogent and legal evidence which was admissible in the eyes of law to connect him with the incident alleged in the cases.

“There is no evidence by way of even a single video footage or CCTV footage to prove that the applicant (Hussain) had participated in the riots or caused damage to any property,” he argued.

‘Victim of circumstances’

Mr. Hussain said he belonged to ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ and was a ‘victim of circumstances’, as he had been caught up in a political cross-fire, and the allegations levelled against him were nothing but a political blame game to malign his image.

He also contended that the primary witness had initially not named him in his complaint but inculpated him only while recording of his statement by the investigating agency. This, he said, was nothing but merely an “improvement” done at the instance of the investigating agency.

“Even if there were no direct acts of violence attributable to the applicant, he cannot shy away from his liability under the provisions of the Sections invoked against him, particularly on account of the fact that his house/building became the hub/centre point for the rioters and rabble-rousers to unleash the worst communal riots since Partition in Delhi,” the court said.

The judge stated that he found “ocular evidence” of independent witnesses to be categorical, which gave the clear details qua the active role played by him in the incidents in question.

The Call Detail Record analysis of Mr. Hussain’s mobile number confirmed his presence at or around the scene of crimes on the dates of incidents, the court said. It also rejected his contention on the delay in the recording of statements of witnesses by the investigating agency.

Related Topics
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Dec 3, 2020 7:22:17 AM |

Next Story