Justice Denied: Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Tahir Hussain's Bail in IB Officer Ankit Sharma Murder Case

In a powerful reaffirmation of justice, the Delhi High Court has once again firmly rejected the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain, who stands accused in the chilling murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the devastating 2020 Delhi riots. This significant decision, handed down by a bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain, underscores the gravity of the charges against Hussain, portraying him as a central figure in the communal violence that rocked the national capital.

The court meticulously reviewed the extensive evidence presented by the prosecution, which painted a grim picture of a "pre-planned conspiracy" designed to unleash widespread chaos and disruption.

The prosecution argued convincingly that Tahir Hussain was not merely a passive observer but an active "instigator" and "ring leader," whose actions fueled the mob violence. His multi-storied house in Khajuri Khas, which became a focal point of the riots, was allegedly used to stockpile stones, petrol bombs, acid, and other projectiles, systematically hurled at innocent victims and security personnel below.

The tragic fate of IB officer Ankit Sharma, whose mutilated body was discovered in a drain near Hussain's residence on February 26, 2020, formed a crucial part of the case.

Forensic reports confirmed that Sharma succumbed to multiple stab wounds inflicted by sharp objects, a brutal act that sent shockwaves across the nation. The court noted that crucial eyewitness testimony, particularly from Jagdish Prasad, who resided opposite Hussain's house, implicated the former councillor directly.

Prasad's statement detailed how he saw Hussain instigating a large mob from his terrace, actively participating in the stone-pelting and encouragement of the rioters.

Further corroborating the prosecution's claims, Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis placed Tahir Hussain in the vicinity of the crime scene during the peak of the riots, contradicting his attempts to establish an alibi.

The High Court emphasized that the trial court had already issued a "detailed and reasoned order" in denying bail, an order that meticulously laid out the incriminating evidence. The bench reiterated that while the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction in bail applications, its role is not to merely supplant the wisdom of the trial court, especially when such a comprehensive assessment has been made.

The court’s decision highlighted the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), under which Hussain is also charged.

The severity of these charges, often associated with acts of terrorism, mandates a higher threshold for granting bail. The judges observed that the evidence, even at the prima facie stage, strongly suggested Hussain's deep involvement in a conspiracy that led to widespread destruction, loss of life, and terror among the populace.

During the proceedings, Hussain's legal team vehemently argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to Ankit Sharma's death and that he was merely present at his own home.

They contended that police had manipulated evidence and that he was being falsely implicated. However, the prosecution countered these arguments by presenting a robust case built on a combination of eyewitness accounts, forensic reports, and electronic evidence, which collectively pointed to Hussain’s active and instrumental role in the riots.

This latest rejection of bail by the Delhi High Court serves as a stark reminder of the long and arduous journey towards justice for the victims of the 2020 Delhi riots.

It reinforces the judiciary's commitment to thoroughly examine evidence in cases of communal violence, ensuring that those allegedly responsible for instigating or participating in such heinous acts are held accountable. The ongoing legal battle continues to unfold, with the court's unwavering stance against granting relief to a key accused in a case that continues to resonate with profound tragedy and a demand for justice.