Interim Bail Can’t Be Granted Merely Because Applicant Had Earlier Been Municipal Councilor: Delhi HC Grants Custody Parole to Delhi Riots Accused Tahir Hussain For Poll Nominations
The Delhi High Court, however, denied the grant of interim bail while noting the allegation that Hussain was the main perpetrator of the 2020 Riots.

The Delhi High Court granted custody Parole to Delhi Riots accused Tahir Hussain for filing his Nomination Papers to contest Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025 from Mustafabad Constituency.
The High Court, however, denied the grant of interim bail and observed that merely because the Applicant/Petitioner had earlier been a Municipal Councilor, cannot be a peculiar circumstance entitling him to grant of Interim Bail.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna asserted, “The gravity of allegations against the Applicant/Petitioner is that he was the main perpetrator to the Riots which took place in the year 2020 in NorthEast District, Delhi, which resulted in death of about 59 persons, cannot be overlooked.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John represented the Petitioner while ASG Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent-State.
The High Court was considering an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) filed on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner seeking Interim Bail from January 14, 2025 to February 9, 2025 to participate in the election process and to contest the Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025 from Mustafabad Constituency, Delhi.
Factual Background
It was brought to the Court’s notice that the Applicant/Petitioner is an accused in relation to the Delhi Riots which took place in February 2020. The Applicant/Petitioner was taken in custody and arrested by the Police on March 5, 2020 and since then, he has been in judicial custody. The Petitioner has already been in custody, in a PMLA case, for more than half of the maximum punishment that can be imposed on him, thereby entitling him to the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, 2023 and to Regular Bail/Anticipatory Bail. Apart from these two cases, the Applicant/Petitioner was arrested in 9 other cases, all related to Delhi Riots, 2020.
Arguments
It was the Petitioner’s case that the Applicant/Petitioner has been granted Regular Bail in various cases and in one of them the FIR has been quashed.It was submitted that in the upcoming Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025, the Applicant/Petitioner, who was a former Municipal Councillor from the Aam Aadmi Party, now intends to contest the Elections from Mustafabad Assembly Constituency, as a Member of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Party.
It was also submitted that to ensure meticulous and uninterrupted completion of the aforesaid procedure, it is imperative that the Applicant/Petitioner may be granted Interim Bail. The Applicant/Petitioner has a right to participate in the Assembly Elections and he cannot be denied this right merely because he is an accused in the present case.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, mentioned that the Applicant/Petitioner was a former Municipal Councillor of Aam Aadmi Party. He is an accused in as many as 9 FIRs that have been registered regarding the Delhi Riots, 2020 which took place in North-East Delhi. In one of the cases, the seizure of materials i.e., Stones, Bricks and Petrol Bombs and Acid drums which were stacked on the roof of his house and were used in the riots, the videos of which have been widely circulated in the social media, had been recovered.
The present FIR pertained to the murder of one Ankit Sharma, an Official of the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. It was also made clear by the Bench that each case has to be determined on its own peculiar facts and the judgment so cited, cannot be said to be a precedent on the proposition of law that in every case where the Applicant intends to contest the Elections, he shall be entitled to Interim Bail.
“Merely because the Applicant/Petitioner had earlier been a Municipal Councilor, cannot be a peculiar circumstance entitling him to grant of Interim Bail”, the Bench said. Considering the antecedents, nature of allegations and having regard to the totality of circumstances, the Bench, thus, granted the applicant Custody Parole for subscribing the Oath and completing the formalities in respect of filing his Nomination Papers.
A few of the conditions imposed upon Hussain are that he shall not have any access to the phone, he would not interact with any person except the officials concerned in the Nomination process, he won’t address the media etc. The Bench also asked the State to coordinate accordingly with the concerned Authorities so that the entire process is completed promptly and the Applicant/Petitioner’s right to file Nomination is not impacted in any manner.
Cause Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State (Nct of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:173)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Tara Narula, Shivangi Sharma, Sonal Sarda, Rishabh Bhati, Anushka Baravah, Rehan Khan, Chinmay Kanojia, Nilanjan Dey & Chandveer Shoran
Respondent: ASG Chetan Sharma, SPP Rajat Nair, Advocates Dhruv Pande, Amit Gupta, Shubham Sharma & Vikramaditya Singh