New Delhi: The February riots in Northeast Delhi were part of a “deep rooted conspiracy”, a Delhi court said Monday as it denied bail to suspended Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain.
“… I find that the riots in the area of North-East Delhi were carried out in an organised manner and as part of deep-rooted conspiracy and the involvement of applicant is being investigated upon with regard to his connection with members of PFI, Pinjratod, Jamia Co- ordination Committee, United Against Hate Group and anti-CAA protesters,” additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav observed while hearing Hussain’s bail plea.
Hussain has been accused in an FIR in connection with the killing of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma. He has been in judicial custody since 16 March.
The judge also found enough material 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 weapons’, who, on his instigation, could have killed anybody”.
The court refused him bail, saying the witnesses in the cases are residents of the same locality as Hussain and “can easily be threatened by a powerful person” like him.
Also read: SC upholds rights of Travancore ex-royal family in running Padmanabhaswamy temple in Kerala
Eyewitness accounts against Hussain
Tahir Hussain had sought bail submitting that there is no CCTV evidence placing him at the scene of the crime. He also relied on the ‘extra-judicial confession’ made by a co-accused, Haseen alias Mullaji alias Salman, admitting to the crime.
However, the public prosecutor argued that the riots were a part of a “large scale conspiracy hatched at various levels all over Delhi in the aftermath of enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019”.
The prosecution also relied on statements by witnesses who had their shops within five metres of the scene of the crime. These witnesses had said that Hussain was present at the place where the incident took place and it was on his instigation that the rioters had killed Sharma.
The court accepted these contentions and said that absence of CCTV footage “does not hold water in the teeth of the statements of eye witnesses on record”.
“Even if there is no video footage or CCTV footage, showing the presence of applicant at the spot, but there is enough ocular evidence available on record,” the judge observed.
Also read: Vested interests are acting against development of Siddha medicine, says Madras HC