The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Delhi Police on why former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain was denied bail in one Delhi riots case despite being granted bail in nine similar cases. Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the prosecution to explain why interim or regular bail should not be granted.
On 14th January, the Delhi Police opposed the interim bail plea of Tahir Hussain, former Aam Aadmi Party councillor and key accused in the anti-Hindu Delhi riots of 2020, in the Delhi High Court. Hussain has sought interim bail in the Ankit Sharma murder case to contest the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as an AIMIM candidate. The Delhi High Court, however, allowed custody parole for filing nomination papers.
This comes a day after the Supreme Court noted that persons like Tahir Hussain should be barred from contesting elections.
Hussain is accused in the case involving the death of IB officer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the February 2020 Delhi riots. He has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020. Seeking interim bail from January 14 to February 9, Hussain petitioned the Delhi High Court to allow him to contest the Delhi Assembly elections from Mustafabad as an AIMIM candidate, citing the need for his physical presence for nomination and campaigning.
Despite securing bail in nine other riot-related cases, he remains without bail in this case. The Delhi High Court denied interim bail but granted custody parole for filing nomination papers under strict conditions, including restricted communication. Dissatisfied, Hussain approached the Supreme Court for interim bail.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Hussain’s lawyer argued that the other main accused had been granted bail after three years in custody. The Court questioned the need for interim bail instead of regular bail. The prosecution sought more time, and the Court scheduled the next hearing for the following day.
