How Much Security Arrangements & Expenses Needed If Tahir Hussain Is Given Custody Parole For Delhi Elections? Supreme Court Asks Delhi Police

After the earlier split verdict, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court today asked the Delhi police to inform as to how much security must be arranged if Delhi riots case accused Tahir Hussain is given custody parole to campaign for the Delhi legislative assembly elections, and the cost the same would entail. The Court said that Hussain might be asked to make a deposit towards the security expenses.

The matter is posted at 2 PM today for Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to get instructions from the Delhi police.

Hussain's plea is listed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, after a split verdict was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah last week.

A former AAP councillor, Hussain moved the Court seeking interim relief in the case related to the murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North East Delhi riots. However, today, he restricted his prayers to custody parole, given he is in custody in few other cases and there is little time left for canvassing.

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, for Hussain, submitted that only a few days are left for the Delhi elections campaigning and hence, he was restricting the relief to seeking custody parole(instead of interim bail) for four days to campaign in the Mustafabad constituency (from where Hussain is contesting on the ticket of the AIMIM party). The senior counsel undertook that Hussain would not visit his house, which is alleged to be the epicentre of the crime conspiracy, as it falls close to the Mustafabad constituency and agreed to stay in a hotel or some other place, the details of which would be furnished.  

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for Delhi police, submitted that even if Hussain is granted interim bail in the present case, he won't be able to get out, as he is in custody in two other cases - one under the UAPA over larger conspiracy behind Delhi riots and the other under the PMLA.

Initially addressing the prayer for interim bail, the bench asked Aggarwal if grant of the relief in the present case wouldn't be a "non-starter" as Hussain would remain confined in the other two cases. Aggarwal replied that relevant applications are pending before the trial court in the other cases as well. Be that as it may, he conceded that little time is left and therefore, Hussain is limiting his prayer to grant of custody parole.

At this point, ASG said that grant of relief to Hussain would open floodgates as many other prisoners would also seek interim bail/custody parole citing the need to contest elections. Justice Nath then asked Raju how many prisoners have filed such applications.

The bench also wondered if it would be safe for Hussain to come out of jail. On this, ASG said that there is no clarity regarding the security arrangements which would be required.

Considering, the bench asked the ASG to get specific instructions and passed-over the matter.

To recap, on January 21, a bench of Justices Mithal and Amanullah delivered a split verdict on Hussain's Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order which refused him interim bail and granted only a custody parole to file nomination to contest from the Mustafabad constituency to the Delhi Legislative Assembly.

While Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed Hussain interim bail.

Notably, while acknowledging that the allegations are grave and serious, Justice Amanullah flagged the delay in the trial in the murder case. Though the chargesheet was filed in June 2020, the judge pointed out that not much progress has taken place in the trial with only less than five witnesses examined. Considering the period undergone under custody(5 years) and the fact that bail had been granted in other cases, the judge concluded that interim bail could be granted till February 4, 2024, subject to the conditions in Section 482 and 484 BNSS 2023.

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. 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 v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025