Karkardooma Court: In a bail application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by former Aam Aadmi party councillor of Mustafabad area Tahir Hussain for allegations of larger conspiracy in 2020 North-East Delhi riots, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai rejected the bail plea.
A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered on 06-03-2020 initially for offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) but later offences under Section 120-B read with 302, 307, 124-A, 153-A, 186, 253, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 109, 114 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added on 15-03-2020 and finally the offences under Section 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) were added on 19-04-2020. He was arrested in the present FIR on 06-04-2020. Tahir Hussain sought bail on the grounds that all the other accused in the matter were granted bail.
The Court took strong view against the ground as to the release of co-accused and said that the same cannot be considered as the co- accused who was granted bail previously was a woman. The Court also noted that other co-accused was granted bail by the Delhi High Court on grounds that the accusations under Section 15, 17 and 18 of the UAPA were found to be prime facie untrue.
The Court also added that the High Court’s opinion as to limitations and restrictions on grant of bail under section 43-D(5) of the UAPA did not apply was only with respect to the co-accused persons and not general and therefore, cannot be considered for any other accused including the present accused/ Tahir Hussain.
The Court said that Tahir not only conspired but also funded the activities of the riots and participated in the other activities which led to the riots. The Court perused the witness statement, wherein it was stated that Tahir distributed money to the protesters in order to make preparations for the riots. Further, the Court noted that Tahir got his licenced revolver just two days before the alleged incidents and 22 used cartridges were recovered from his house. The Court also noted that approximately Rs. 1.5 crore was converted to cash, which was used in the rioting and the said fact was confirmed through the statements of different witnesses and examination of relevant bank accounts.
The Court refused to accept Tahir’s contention that alleged acts cannot be termed as ‘terrorist act’ and did not constitute the offences under Section 13, 16, 17 and 18 of UAPA. The Court explained that the definition of ‘Terrorist Act’ as provided under Section 15 of the UAPA clearly showed that even if some inflammable substance, firearms, lethal weapons are used which is likely to cause death or injury to any person or causes loss, damage or destruction to any property, such act would fall in the definition of Terrorist Act. The Court opined that in the matter at hand, the allegations are such that the acts may fall in the definition of Terrorist act.
Hence, the Court dismissed the bail application and viewed that the the allegations were prima facie true.
[Tahir Hussain v. State, I.A. No. 171/2023, Order Dated: 30-03-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
