Delhi HC Reserves Verdict On Tahir Hussain's Bail Plea In Ankit Sharma Murder Case
This is the fifth bail application of accused Tahir Hussain. Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma was allegedly murdered in February 2020 during the North East Delhi Riots. Hussain is also an accused in the larger Conspiracy of the Delhi riots case of 2020.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved order after hearing submissions by the counsel for the accused Tahir Hussain and the Delhi police.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan, alongwith Tara Narula and Shivangi Sharma, appeared for Hussain.
It was argued that the accused has been in judicial custody since 2020. Two accused, namely Haseen Mullaji and Sameer Khan, are enlarged on bail.
This case is at the stage of Prosecution evidence before the trial court. Investigation officer's examination and cross-examination are pending.
It was argued by the counsel for the accused that the Trial Court dismissed the fourth bail application wrongly, observing that there was no change in circumstances since the previous dismissal. There is a material change in circumstances in favour of the accused.
Counsel for the accused also submitted that three eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the Prosecution. "The evidence of the complainant has been recorded. He did not identify the Complaint on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. All public eye witnesses have been examined," it said.
It was also argued that there is no apprehension of interference with the trial, as there are no allegations of influencing the witnesses. Advocate Rajat Nair opposed the bail application on behalf of the Delhi police.
Delhi police said that Tahir Hussain has been identified by eyewitnesses. One eyewitness recorded a 29-second video of the mob dragging the deceased Ankit Sharma from the side of Tahir Hussain's house and throwing him over an iron fence, into the drain.
It was also argued that a witness identified Tahir Hussain as a member of the mob armed with dandas, petrol bombs and stones, instigating them.
Police said that there is apprehension of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with evidence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
Consenting Adults Have Right To Choose Partners, Live Together: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has called the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together "a facet of their personal liberty and privacy" being immune to the family's disapproval. "The Supreme court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm," Justice Sanjeev Narula said on August 5. The court, as a result, directed the police to provide protection to a young couple, who married against the wishes of their families and were now being threatened. "The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy," the order highlighted. The couple sought the court's intervention to ensure their safety in living together, claiming threats, coercion and interference being extended by the family members. The court was urged to direct the woman's family not to harm them or interfere in their peaceful cohabitation. The plea said the woman's family was against their relationship and allegedly issued repeated threats of physical harm. It said due to the hostility and fearing for her safety, the woman left her parental home on July 18 after informing her mother about her intention to marry the man. The couple married in a temple on July 23 on their own free will and has been living together happily, it added. The high court then directed the station house office of the police station concerned to designate an official and sensitise him or her of the court order and provide immediate assistance to the couple in case of any complaint or threat. "The directions issued herein, particularly those concerning police protection, are purely preventive in nature, aimed at ensuring the petitioners' safety and safeguarding their right to life and liberty. They shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the truthfulness of the petitioners' claims, nor as any endorsement," it said. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Use of children in crimes may lead to re-fixing juvenility age: Delhi HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has flagged the use of children by criminals, noting that such offences are the reason that prompted the reconsideration of the age of juvenility. Justice Girish Kathpalia made these observations while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of using a child in illicit liquor trafficking. The judge said that the child abuse involved in carrying out such crimes is far more seious than the illicit liquor trafficking. "It is being observed that criminals use children to commit a wide range of crimes, involving not just liquor and drug peddling, but also arms and ammunition, and even acts of extreme violence, which is leading society to consider re-fixing the age of juvenility," HC observed in its order. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Choice to marry someone from different faith safeguarded by Constitution: Delhi High Court
New Delhi The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held. (Representative photo) The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held, while directing the Delhi Police to continue protecting an interfaith couple facing threats from their families. A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation on August 8, while dealing with a plea filed by a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 25-year-old Hindu woman, seeking police protection and accommodation in a safe house. In a petition filed last month, the couple asserted that despite solemnising their marriage after a relationship of over seven years, there was strong opposition from the woman's family. The petition said that despite writing to the deputy commissioner of police for the southeast district on July 23, requesting police protection, the police forcibly separated the woman from her husband and detained her at Nirmal Chhaya Shelter Home on July 24. The plea stated that the woman married the man voluntarily, without any coercion. On July 25, the high court directed the DCP to look into the matter personally and, if the woman affirmed her wish to live with her husband, to ensure appropriate arrangements for the couple's safety. The counsel for the woman's father, on August 8, asserted that his client was deeply troubled by his daughter's decision to marry the man without his consent and that he was concerned for his daughter's welfare. Considering the contentions, the court directed Delhi Police to continue providing them protection and accommodation in a safe house, till they solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The bench said that parents' anguish over their daughter choosing her life partner without consultation cannot eclipse the right of an adult to choose a life partner, since Article 21 of the Constitution safeguards an individual's right to marry a person of one's choice. 'The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 enables every adult citizen may shape the course of their own life, free from fear, coercion or unlawful restraint. The choice to marry, especially across lines of faith, may test the resilience of social norms and familial expectations, yet in law, it remains a matter of personal liberty and individual autonomy, immune from any external veto. While the anguish of a parent is understandable, it cannot eclipse the rights of a major to select their life partner,' the court said. It added, 'The court is mindful of the anguish of the girl's father, who opposes the relationship on grounds that he perceives as legitimate and rooted in his concern for his daughter's welfare. However, upon attaining the age of majority, the right to make decisions regarding marriage becomes the individual's personal prerogative. Parental preference, however well-intentioned, cannot legally override that autonomy.' Noting the couple's allegation of being forcibly separated, the court directed the DCP to submit a report on whether any unlawful separation had occurred and, if so, to identify the officer responsible. The direction came after the woman claimed she was taken to a shelter home by the police against her will, while the police maintained that no coercion, unlawful action, or procedural lapse had taken place. The matter will next be heard on September 12. The same bench, in a similar plea filed by another couple, also ruled that a family's disapproval cannot override the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together peacefully. 'The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,' the court said in an order on August 5.
