The Supreme Court challenged the Delhi Police on Tuesday regarding the bail status of Tahir Hussain, a former city council member. This questioning came because Hussain was denied bail in one case related to the Delhi riots, even though he received bail in nine other similar cases connected to the same violence. Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed concern over this difference, noting a possible problem with the way the law was being applied.
The court’s concerns were raised during a hearing about Hussain’s request for temporary bail. Hussain is currently being held in jail while waiting for his trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He faces numerous charges linked to the riots. The judges wanted to know why he was being treated differently in this one specific case, as similar charges in other cases resulted in his release on bail. Importantly, all of these cases relate to the same large event, the Delhi riots.
Furthermore, the court asked Hussain’s lawyer why he was only seeking temporary bail instead of asking the court to examine the entire case. Justice Mithal stated that they could review the facts of the case, signaling the court’s interest in understanding all aspects of the situation. This statement suggests that a careful look at the prosecution’s claims and the evidence against Hussain might be necessary.
The Supreme Court’s questions emphasize the need for fairness in legal decisions, especially when dealing with multiple charges related to the same incident. The court’s focus on the reasons for denying bail in this specific instance may have a large impact on how similar cases are handled going forward. People will be watching closely to see if this case changes how courts consider bail for those accused in the Delhi riots.