It is most significant to note that while denying bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain for his role in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during February 2020 North East Delhi riots and highlighting the extremely grave allegations against him, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohd Tahir Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Appln. 1724/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:8605 that was reserved on 13.08.2025 and then finally pronounced on 25.09.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that:
Long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when the facts prima facie show involvement in grave and serious offences. In cases involving large-scale communal riots, threatening the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country, the interest of national security and public order must be balanced against individual rights. The Court said that Hussain’s conduct in the trial of other cases arising out of the north east Delhi riots cannot be ignored and referred to an alleged attempt to influence a prosecution witness through his son. It was also pointed out by the Court that:
Tahir Hussain in a well-planned manner had shifted his family well in time and his house, which was allegedly identified as a key protest and riot site in the larger conspiracy, was used as a fort and an operational base to attack members of the Hindu community.
We need to note that it was Tahir Hussain’s fifth bail application that was filed in the case and he has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020. It also must be taken into account that this leading case prima facie found Tahir not only a passive participant but a key figure in the events. What also merits mentioning here is that Tahir Hussain’s argument of prolonged trial and bail plea was rejected as the Delhi High Court noted that the case was at its final stage.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Fifth Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant Mohd. Tahir Hussain seeking Bail in FIR No.065/2020 under Sections 147/148/153A/365/302/188 read with Sections 149/120B IPC, registered at P.S. Dayalpur, Delhi.
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that:
It is submitted that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 16.03.2020. The Chargesheet has already been filed and the Charges under Sections 147/148/153A/365/302/188 read with Sections 149/120B IPC have already been framed vide Order dated 23.03.2023. The matter is pending at the stage of prosecution witness. Out of 11 accused persons, 8 (including two accused persons Haseen Mullaji and Sameer Khan, who alleged to have committed the murder, have been granted bail. Previous Bail Application filed by the Applicant was dismissed on 12.03.2025 by the learned Trial Court.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
It is submitted that FIR was registered on 26.02.2020, on Complaint of Ravinder Kumar regarding kidnapping of his son Ankit Sharma, an erstwhile office of Intelligence Bureau (IB), on 25.02.2020 at about 05:00 PM, during riots in North-East District of Delhi, in the aftermath of the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). Dead body of Ankit Sharma was found lying in a drain near Chand Bagh Pulia, having sustained sharp injuries on his head, face, chest, back and on his waist. The Applicant was already in custody in FIR No.0101/2020, PS: Khajuri Khas and was arrested in present FIR on 16.03.2020.
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 4 that:
The case of the prosecution against him is that he provoked and instigated Muslims against Hindus and promoted enmity on the grounds of religion between them and the uncontrolled mob turned into rioters. In process of rioting, the mob caught hold of deceased Ankit Sharma and dragged him to Chand Bagh Pulia and inflicted injuries using sharp and blunt objects/weapons which resulted in his death and then they threw his dead body in the nala.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 37 that:
This is the fifth Bail Application filed by the Applicant in connection with FIR No. 65/2020, registered for Offences including rioting and the murder of Ankit Sharma, an officer of the Intelligence Bureau. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.03.2020.
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 38 observing that:
The murder of the victim/Ankit Sharma, which is the subject matter of the present FIR 65/2020, cannot be viewed as a standalone incident or a spontaneous act of violence. Rather, it was contextualized as a direct and foreseeable off-shoot of the larger criminal conspiracy whereby communal riots were organized in Delhi in respect of which eleven FIRs got registered. It was a premeditated and well-orchestrated conspiracy, allegedly hatched between several accused persons, of which the Applicant/Tahir Hussain was the mastermind. He in a well-planned manner had shifted his family well in time. The prosecution alleges that the Applicant’s house near Chand Bagh Pulia was allegedly identified as a key protest and riot site in the larger conspiracy. It was used as a fort and an operational base to attack members of the Hindu community. The recovery of stones, petrol bombs, acid, and slingshots from his rooftop, and testimonies of witnesses seeing these items being pelted, directly correspond to the planned stockpiling and use of such items as part of the larger conspiracy.
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 39 that:
The conspiracy involved escalating the anti-CAA/NRC protests into chakka-jaams and violent riots, particularly during the state visit of the US President, to garner international attention. The events leading to the murder of Ankit Sharma on 25.02.2020 at Chand Bagh Pulia align precisely with the methods and objectives of this larger conspiracy.
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 40 that:
A primary objective of the larger conspiracy was to incite widespread communal violence by propagating a misleading narrative against the CAA/NRC. In the present case, multiple eyewitnesses, namely PW5/HC Rahul, PW13/Aakash and PW14/Bharat have testified that the Applicant/Tahir Hussain, was seen instigating the mob with communally charged slogans moments before and during the assault on Ankit Sharma, stating that Hindus had killed Muslims and that Kafirs had to be taught a lesson. This act of incitement is a direct consequence of the conspiracy’s alleged goal.
More to the point, the Bench then notes in para 42 that:
Therefore, the incident in the present FIR 65/2020 is not merely an ancillary crime, but a gruesome manifestation of the larger conspiracy. The dragging of Ankit Sharma by an enraged mob, his brutal murder with 51 injuries, and the subsequent disposal of his body in a drain, defines the gravity of the offence. Viewing this incident as an off-shoot of the larger conspiracy is essential to appreciate its full gravity and the prima facie role of the Applicant within it.
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench observes in para 50 that:
The planning to perpetrate violence is suggested by the fact that the Applicant had allegedly shifted his family from his house before the riots began but stayed back himself. Furthermore, he had his licensed pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition released from Police Station Khajuri Khas on 22.02.2020, just before the riots, and could not provide a satisfactory account for 14 live and 22 fired cartridges. This act, timed right before the outbreak of violence, points towards a premeditated plan.
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 51 that:
The Applicant’s counsel argued that several public witnesses have not supported the case of the Prosecution or have turned hostile. However, at the Bail stage, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve deep into the appreciation of evidence. The testimonies of witnesses who have directly implicated the Applicant cannot be ignored. The statements of PW5/HC Rahul, PW13/Aakash, PW14/Bharat, and PW56/Priyanka Gaur, among others, form a strong basis to believe, prima facie, that the Applicant was not only a passive participant but a key figure in the events that transpired.
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 52 that:
The Supreme Court in NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, and reiterated in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, has laid down elaborate guidelines on the approach that the Courts must partake. The Court is not required to conduct an elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence, but is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused. The totality of the material gathered by the investigating agency is to be considered as a whole, and the contents of the documents are to be presumed as true, at this stage.
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 54 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
It need not be emphasized that while a speedy trial is the constitutional right of every accused, prolonged incarceration cannot be the sole ground for granting bail in a case of this magnitude, which involves allegations of orchestrating large-scale communal violence resulting in the brutal murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer. Long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when the facts prima facie show involvement in grave and serious offences. In cases involving large-scale communal riots, threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of the country, the interest of national security and public order must be balanced against individual rights.
While citing recent and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 55 that, As held by this Court recently in Tasleem Ahmed vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025:DHC:7659-DB, delay cannot be the sole factor for the grant of bail, especially when the gravity of the offence or the role played by the accused is significant.
While citing yet another recent and relevant case law, the Bench then mentions in para 56 that:
In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775, the Apex Court while relying upon State of Amarmani Tripathi, (supra) has observed that long period of incarceration cannot, itself be the ground for grant of Bail.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 60 that:
The trial is almost concluded and is at fag end. Therefore, the alleged prolonged trial cannot be a ground for bail.
As we observe, the Bench states in para 61 that:
The next main argument of the Applicant is his claim for parity with 8 co-accused persons who have been granted Bail, including two, who were alleged to have directly participated in the murder.
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 62 noting that:
However, the principle of parity applies only when the role of the accused is similar to that of the co-accused who has been granted bail. In the present case, the allegations against the Applicant are far more serious and place him in a distinct category.
More damningly and adding more to it, the Bench points out in para 63 that:
The Applicant is not just alleged to be a member of the mob, but the main conspirator who instigated, facilitated, and provided his own house as a base for the riots.
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench further more damningly observes in para 64 that:
In view of the factual matrix and the prima facie evidence on record, it is found that the accusations against the Applicant are extremely grave, indicating his pivotal role in the conspiracy and execution of the riots, which resulted in the murder of Ankit Sharma. This key role distinguishes him from other accused persons.
As if this was not enough, the Bench while taking potshots at the applicant points out in para 65 that:
Finally, the conduct of the accused during trial of criminal cases arising out of North-East Delhi Riots cannot be ignored. The Status Report details an instance in FIR No. 0114/2020, where the Applicant allegedly attempted to influence a public witness through his son. Such conduct weighs heavily against him being granted the Bail.
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench underscores in para 66 propounding that, The testimony of eyewitnesses, the circumstances pointing to a premeditated plan, and the Applicant’s past conduct of attempting to influence a witness in a related matter, all weigh heavily against the grant of Bail.
As a corollary, the Bench then resultantly holds in para 67 that:
In light of the foregoing reasons, the Applicant is held not entitled to Bail.
For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 68 mandating that:
It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove are not an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that these observations shall not, in any manner, influence the trial before the learned Trial Court, as they have been made solely for the purpose of examining the Bail Application of the Applicant.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 69 that, Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the present Bail Application is dismissed.
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear that prolonged incarceration cannot be the sole ground to grant bail in a case of this magnitude, which involves allegations of orchestrating large-scale communal violence resulting in the brutal murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer. It was also pointed out by the Court that the allegations against the applicant are far more serious than the 8 co-accused persons who have been granted bail. It was also brought to the fore by the Delhi High Court that the Applicant is not just alleged to be a member of the mob, but the main conspirator who instigated, facilitated, and provided his own house as a base for the riots.
Apart from this, it was also laid bare that the applicant allegedly attempted to influence a public witness through his son. So the Delhi High Court prima facie thus found no bona fide reason to grant bail to the applicant who is the main conspirator in this ghastly crime which claimed lives of so many innocent people! His bail plea was thus very rightly rejected by the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in this leading case giving valid reasons for the same. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
