Tahir Hussain Bail | Supreme Court Judge Questions Delhi Police Over Delay In Trial Of Ankit Sharma Murder Case

During the hearing of interim bail plea of Tahir Hussain, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court today flagged the delay in the trial in the case related to the murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. Though the chargesheet was filed in June 2020, the judge pointed out that not much progress has taken place in the trial with only less than five witnesses examined so far.

Underlining the importance of the life and liberty of an individual, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the judge questioned the prosecuting agency on its delay in completing the trial when it vehemently opposed grant of interim bail to Hussain citing serious allegations in the case.

"This is a matter of life and liberty...that is why we have listed day-to-day...why have you not completed trial since 5 yrs? Just examined 4 out of 5 eye-witnesses? Chargesheet was filed on 02.06.2020! All this has to be looked at. You can't castigate somebody like this! He(Tahir Hussain) has not been out of jail even for a day in 5 yrs. We can't shut our eyes. What is Article 21 of the Constitution for?"

"For five years, you have not even examined your star witness, and he is out of Delhi! We don't want to comment further," Justice Amanullah said. 

The observation came when Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, for Hussain, informed the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Amanullah that out of 5 eye-witnesses, the prosecution has examined 4. Out of these, 2 turned hostile and a 5th is stated to be out of Delhi, with no information on when he is expected to be available. Referring to judgments in the case of Manish Sisodia, Arvind Kejriwal, etc., it was further highlighted that long incarceration and delay in completion of trial can weigh with the court to grant bail even if a case is not made out on law or if there is non-fulfilment of stringent conditions under PMLA/UAPA.

Arguing on behalf of Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju urged the Court to not exercise its discretion to grant interim bail in Hussain's case, as the allegations were very serious. It was underlined that Hussain's role was not limited to instigating; rather, he orchestrated the Delhi Riots and his house was the "epicentre" from where directions were sent and weapons recovered.

Objecting to the use of the word "epicentre", Justice Amanullah noted that such allegation was not made out from the material and the allegation pertained only to recovery of weapons. This led the ASG to tone down his submission and substitute "epicentre" with "hub".

In this backdrop, Justice Amanullah questioned the agency's lapse in completing trial in a timely manner, if the case was so serious.

Ultimately, the bench delivered a split verdict, with Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissing the petition and Justice Amanullah allowing it. The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a third judge or larger bench.

Case Title: MOHD TAHIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025