Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Response On Tahir Hussain's Plea For Interim Bail For Delhi Elections

The Supreme Court today sought Delhi Police's response on the plea filed by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) candidate and Delhi Riots case accused Mohd Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail in order to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly polls.

To recapitulate briefly, Hussain initially sought interim bail from the Delhi High Court in a murder case registered in relation to the death of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi Riots. But, the same was denied. He was however granted custody parole in order to facilitate filing of his nomination for the Delhi polls. Seeking interim bail, Hussain then approached the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the matter and kept it for tomorrow, taking into account Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal's (for Hussain) submission that Hussain has been in custody for 4 years and 10 months, only on the allegation of inciting a mob during the 2020 Delhi Riots.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Mithal noted that Hussain is booked in 11 cases - out of which he has been granted bail in 9, and the 2 cases in which he remains in custody include one under PMLA. Justice Amanullah, on his part, asked Aggarwal to address the Court as if Hussain was seeking regular bail and enquired as to the period already spent in custody.

In response, the senior counsel submitted that Hussain was arrested in the instant case on 16.03.2020 and has undergone about 4 yrs and 10 months in custody. He further urged that till February, 2020, Hussain was a person with clean antecedents. However, after the Delhi Riots that took place, the former AAP councilor was booked in 11 cases on the same allegation that he incited a mob. On the status of trial, Aggarwal informed that charges were framed after 3 yrs of custody and 115 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, out of which 22 have been examined.

"Not a single person has ever said that I have tried to subvert the process of justice or not cooperated in any manner...the main assailants who were there have been granted regular bail!", said Aggarwal.

When the bench probed the senior counsel on the particular FIR in which interim bail was being sought, it appeared that the impugned order of the High Court recorded an FIR No. different from the one in which Hussain was seeking interim bail. "There are various aspects in the impugned order where, with the utmost respect, the Hon'ble High Court has gone factually wrong", said Aggarwal with respect to this. Considering, Justice Mithal commented that Hussain should then have sought rectification of the order.

Thereafter, addressing the Court on its observation that Hussain only sought interim bail from the High Court, not regular bail, Aggarwal informed that Hussain's regular bail application was pending before the High Court, wherein the interim application was filed. Taking the Court through the allegations in the relevant FIR, the senior counsel underlined that the case was registered on the complaint of victim-Ankit Sharma's father and Hussain named as one among 11 charge-sheeted accused.

It was urged that the allegations qua 4 of the accused was that they stabbed Ankit Sharma and disposed of his body, whereas the allegation qua Hussain was that he incited the said persons. At this point, Justice Mithal noted from witnesses' statements that Hussain's involvement was "very much there" and he was present at the site. Defending the same, Aggarwal said that Hussain made many PCR calls at the time to seek help from authorities to diffuse the situation.

Subsequently, Justice Mithal enquired from Aggarwal as to why Hussain was pressing for interim bail, instead of regular bail, "as if election is the only thing in life to be done". Aggarwal answered the same, saying that the regular bail plea was pending but the respondent did not even file a counter-affidavit. "The fact that for 4 yrs and 10 months I have been in custody and the trial is at a certain stage should weigh with your Lordships in granting me 15 days/10 days [interim bail]", he added.

At this point, Justice Mithal categorically said that the bench is not inclined to grant interim bail. Turning to Delhi Police counsel Rajat Nair, Justice Amanullah remarked,

"Suppose tentatively if we feel persuaded that he makes out a case for regular bail, then why not we should give atleast interim? If we are satisfied at this stage on merits that some case is made out considering - we are not saying grant or non-grant - regular, then why not interim? After 5 yrs 10 months...and he is only an instigator and very same allegation of instigation is in 9 cases...he has been granted bail...you can't shut your eyes to that!"

Ultimately, at Nair's request for time to prepare and argue, the matter was adjourned till tomorrow. "We have to consider it, time for interim bail is expiring", remarked Justice Mithal before parting.

Background

Hussain, a former Aam Aadmi Party councilor, is booked in the the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. In March, 2024, the trial court framed charges against Hussain and others under Sections 147, 148, 153A, 302, 365, 120B, 149, 188 and 153A IPC. Hussain was additionally charged under Sections 505, 109 and 114 IPC.

Seeking interim bail, Hussain initially approached the Delhi High Court. Though Delhi Police opposed Hussain's plea for interim bail, it took a stand that it was willing to cooperate and support Hussain in filing Nomination Papers (and to open his Bank Account) for which Custody Parole could be granted to him.

Noting that the gravity of allegations against Hussain, that he was the main perpetrator of the riots (which resulted in death of about 59 persons) could not be overlooked, the High Court denied Hussain interim bail on January 14. However, it granted him custody parole for subscribing oath and filing nomination papers in the Assembly polls from Mustafabad constituency.

The Court directed Delhi authorities to facilitate Hussain's filing of nomination papers on the concerned date and to provide the facility for completing the formalities before and after the filing of Nomination Papers for contesting the elections.

Subsequent to this order, Hussain approached the Supreme Court seeking interim bail to campaign ahead of the Delhi Assembly polls. Yesterday, when the matter was listed for the first time, Justice Mithal expressed that people like Hussain should be "barred from contesting".

Case Title: MOHD TAHIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025