New Delhi, May 15 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court today dismissed the bail application of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councilor Tahir Hussain, saying that Delhi Riots-2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation, aspiring to be a major global power.
The allegations against the applicant are extremely grave in nature, observed Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vinod Yadav, while dismissing the bail plea in two FIRs registered against Hussain into the alleged communal violence that broke out in the name of protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, last year in North East Delhi. (State V/s Tahir Hussain)
In February, 2020, the clashes between the pro-Citizenship law supporters and anti-CAA protesters spiralled out of control, leaving 53 people dead and 748 people injured.
Both FIRs were registered at Police Station, Dayalpur in the present bail applications related to Gun Shot injury caused to two men in a firing from the terrace of property belonging to Hussain.
In both the FIRs, Ajay and Prince Bansal told the police that when they went out to take household articles, they noticed that a riotous mob was pelting stones, throwing petrol bombs and firing gunshots from the terrace of the house belonging to the applicant, upon the persons/members of other community.
Suddenly, one of the persons from the said riotous mob fired upon them, as a result of which they sustained gunshot injury.
The ASJ said, “It is prima facie apparent that the applicant abused his muscle power and political clout to foment communal violence in the area.
“The spread of riots on such a big scale in such a short time is not possible without a premeditated conspiracy. So, now when the applicant found himself up against the wall, he cannot pass on the buck by simply taking a plea that since he did not participate physically in the riots, so he has no role to play in the riots.
“The Delhi riots 2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power. The allegations against the applicant are extremely grave in nature. 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 Judge Noted.
The court said, “It is a matter of record that public witnesses in the aforesaid matters are residents of the same locality and if released on bail at this stage, the possibility of applicant threatening or intimidating them cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case(s) in totality, gravity of offence and the influence which the applicant holds in the area/locality, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in both the captioned matters. Both the bail applications are accordingly dismissed.”
It added, “It is hereby clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case(s), as the case(s) are at ‘pre-charge stage’.”
The Court further noted that this Court is aware of the importance of personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent pronouncement in case titled as, “Sudha Singh V/s State of UP & Ors.”, Criminal Appeal No.448/2021, date of decision 23.04.2021 has been pleased to lay down that “there is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime, but it is important for the Courts to recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if accused is released on bail”.
“For the present, the delay in recording of FIR(s) in the matter(s) have been suitably explained by the prosecution. Besides the captioned matters, applicant is also an accused in accused in nine other case of communal riots in North-East Delhi and his regular bail applications already stood dismissed by this Court,” it said. ILNS/KR/RJ