BAIL DENIED TO TAHIR HUSSAIN , ACCUSED OF MURDER

By Anshika Khera

Extremely grave allegations were highlighted by the Delhi High Court when they denied bail to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in the murder case of IB staffer Ankit Sharma during February 2020 riots. Justice Neena Krishna Bansal said the incident was not merely an “ancillary crime, but a gruesome manifestation” of a larger conspiracy.

“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,” the court said. Tahir Hussain was not only identified as a passive participant but also as a key figure in the events. 

“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 (Hussain) within it,” the bail rejection order added. 

On February 26,2020 , complainant Ravinder Kumar informed the Dayalpur police station officials that his son Ankit Sharma, who was in Intelligence Bureau , was missing since February 25,2020. He later learnt from some locals that a person’s body was dumped in the Khajuri Khas nala from the masjid of Chand Bagh pulia after being murdered.

The prosecution alleged that Sharma’s body was recovered from Khajuri Khas nala and there were 51 injuries on his body.It was Hussain’s fifth bail application filed in the case and has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020.Four other accused were also stated to be the part of the violent mob which was involved in the acts of rioting and arson, which killed Sharma.

The court said the conspiracy involved escalating the anti-CAA/NRC protests into chakka-jams and violent riots, particularly during the state visit of the US President, to garner international attention. “ 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.