A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed bail applications filed by former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain in three cases, on the grounds that there is ocular evidence of his active role in the Delhi riots and that he used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin in its planning.

The former political leader had moved the court seeking bail in three cases pertaining to the Delhi riots case. Besides these three, Hussain is an accused in eight other cases of communal riots. In February, clashes between the pro citizenship law supporters and anti-CAA protesters had spiraled out of control, leaving 53 people dead and 748 people injured.

Dismissing the three applications, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav noted, “It is prima facie apparent that he used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration. I find that there is enough material on record to presume that the applicant was present at the spot and was exhorting the rioters.”

The court further said that he used rioters as “human weapons”, who on his instigation could have killed anybody. “The Delhi riots 2020 are a gaping wound in the conscience of a nation aspiring to be a major global power. The allegations against the applicant are extremely grave in nature,” the judge added.

The court went on to say that there is enough ocular evidence of independent witnesses to presume that the applicant was present at the spot of crime and was exhorting the rioters.

“I am reminded of a famous English saying which says that when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire. So, when the applicant is at receiving end now, he cannot pass on the buck by simply taking a plea that since he did not participate physically in the riots, so he has no role to play in the riots.”

The Additional Sessions Judge added, “It is a matter of record that public witnesses in the aforesaid matters are residents of the same locality and if released on bail at this stage, the possibility of the applicant threatening or intimidating them cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case(s) in totality, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.”

Senior advocate K.K. Manon and advocate Uditi Bali, representing Hussain, had argued that their client is being falsely implicated in the matters by the “investigating agency and his political rivals with the sole purpose of harassing him by abuse of the machinery of law”.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Manoj Chaudhary had vehemently opposed the three bail pleas asserting that Hussain’s call detail records confirm his presence at or around the scene of the crime on the dates of the incidents.