Worst communal riots since Partition: Court while rejecting 3 bail pleas of Tahir Hussain

new delhi: Stating that it is prima facie apparent that suspended AAP councillor Tahir Hussain "used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin" in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration, a Delhi court on Thursday dismissed three bail pleas moved by him in connection his involvement in the February riots.

In his order, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said that "there is enough material on record to presume that Hussain was very well present at the spot of crime and was exhorting the rioters of a particular community and as such, he did not use his hands and fists, but rioters as human bombs," adding that "the allegations against Hussain are extremely grave in nature".

But before rejecting Hussain's bail pleas, the court remarked that the February 2020 riots were the worst communal riots Delhi had seen since partition.

"It is common knowledge that the dreary day of February 24, 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," the court said.

Judge Yadav further stated that even if there were no direct acts of violence attributable to Hussain, he cannot shy away from his liability under provisions of the sections invoked against him, "particularly on account of the fact that his house became the hub for the rioters and rabble rousers to unleash the worst communal riots since partitions in Delhi".

The matter pertains to three of the 11 cases registered against Hussain—all in Dayalpur Police Station. While one of the FIRs relates to PCR call on February 25 which claimed that around 100 people were standing on the terrace of the house of Hussain and throwing petrol bombs on the Hindus, the other two relate to alleged arson and vandalism of two separate shops in Sherpur Chowk and Moonga Nagar respectively.

Arguing on behalf of the applicant, K K Manan along with Uditi Bali claimed that Hussain has been falsely implicated in the matter by the investigative agency and the political rivals with the sole purpose of harassing him, adding that their client is a "victim of circumstances as he had been caught up in a political crossfire and the allegations levelled against are a political blame-game to malign his image".

In two of the FIRs, the counsels also questioned the "unexplained delay between the day of the incident and when the case was registered". They argued that "mere presence of the applicant at the spot of incident is not sufficient to hold that he shared the common intention to commit the alleged offence in the matter".

The court also noted that since the public witnesses in the matter were residents of the same locality and if released on bail at this stage, "the possibility of the applicant threatening or intimidating them cannot be ruled out".