[Delhi Riots] 'Tahir Hussain Acted As Kingpin In Planning, Instigating Flames Of Communal Conflagration', Denies Bail [Read Order]

"It is prima facie apparent that he used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration", remarked Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Thursday (22nd October) while dismissing the bail application of former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and a prime accused in cases related to the February Northeast Delhi riots.Quoting a famous English saying, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav, Karkardooma Court further remarked,"When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire"Notably, the Court also said,"It is common knowledge that the dreary day of 24.02.2020 saw parts of North-East Delhi gripped by a communal frenzy, reminiscent of carnage during the days of partition. Soon, the riots spread like wildfire across the smoke-grey skyline of Capital, engulfing new areas and snuffing out more and more innocent lives. The Delhi riots 2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power." (emphasis supplied)It may be noted that the Delhi Police's special cell has charged Hussain with rioting, murder and inciting rioters. He has also been charged with hatching a conspiracy to orchestrate the riots and funding the communal riots.Arguments put forthIt was submitted by Tahir's Counsel that on 24.02.2020 at around 1.30 PM, a riotous mob had gathered around the of the applicant that had set on fire a bullet motorcycle lying parked outside his house.Thereafter, the said riotous mob broke the main gate of his house, entered inside and climbed up on to the roof and damaged his house badly.It was further argued that considering the seriousness of the situation prevalent in the area on 24.02.2020 vis-à-vis threat to his life and the life of his family members, the applicant had made several telephonic calls to SHO, PS Dayalpur and ACP of the area, but none of them answered his calls.The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was falsely implicated in the matter by the investigating agency and his political rivals with the sole purpose of harassing him by abuse of the machinery of law.It was argued that applicant belongs to "Aam Aadmi Party" and is a "victim of circumstances", as he has been caught up in a political cross-fire and the allegations levelled against him are nothing, but a political blame game to malign his image.It was also argued that there was an "unexplained delay" of about three days in registration of FIR in the matter, as the alleged incident in the matter took place on 25.02.2020; whereas, the FIR was registered on 28.02.2020.The bail was being sought by him on the grounds that there was no cogent and legal evidence which is admissible in the eyes of law, to connect the applicant with the incident alleged in the matter.It was contended that there was no evidence by way of even single video footage or CCTV footage to prove that the applicant had participated in the riots or caused damage to any property.It was argued that mere presence of the applicant at the spot of the incident is not sufficient to hold that he shared the "common intention" to commit the alleged offence in the matter.Special prosecutor Manoj Chaudhary, on the other hand, argued that the riots were part of large scale conspiracy hatched at various levels all over Delhi in the aftermath of enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (in short "CAA") and the same did not take place spontaneously.It was argued that the applicant in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy had instigated the rioters of a particular community and provided logistic support like lathis, dandas, stones, acid bottles, knives, swords, firearms etc. to the rioters at the roof of his house itself.It was also argued that beside police constables, the accused/applicant was identified by independent witnesses also (at the scene of the crime on the date of incident).Court's Observations The Court was of the prima facie view that the "riotous mob" armed with "lethal weapons" had engaged in vandalism, looting and torching of public and private properties and their main objective was to cause maximum damage to the lives and properties of persons belonging to other community.Therefore, the Court remarked, at this stage, it cannot be said with certainty that the applicant did not have a common object with the other persons of unlawful assembly. The "common object" of this kind of riotous mob can be easily inferred therefrom.Further the Court said,"Whether he can be convicted in the matter with the aid of Section 149 IPC is a preposterous conclusion at this stage, as the evidence is yet to be led in the matter. However, from the aforesaid behavior of "riotous mob", the "common object" can be inferred at this stage."The Court also noted that even if there is no video footage or CCTV footage, showing the presence of the applicant at the spot, but there is enough ocular evidence available ...

[Delhi Riots] 'Tahir Hussain Acted As Kingpin In Planning, Instigating Flames Of Communal Conflagration', Denies Bail [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

[Delhi Riots] 'Tahir Hussain Acted As Kingpin In Planning, Instigating Flames Of Communal Conflagration', Denies Bail [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers