A Delhi Court recently granted bail to former MCD councillor Tahir Hussain in a case related to the North East Delhi riots, citing changed circumstances.
The Delhi High Court had previously granted him bail in five riots cases on July 12.
This specific case revolves around an incident on February 25, 2023, where one Ajay Goswami sustained a gunshot injury, resulting in a case being registered at the Dayalpur police station.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala pointed out that it is an indisputable fact that the incident in the current FIR occurred in close proximity, both in time and location, to two other incidents for which the accused had already been granted bail by the High Court.
“In that situation, even though a bail order may not be a precedent for other cases, in the aforesaid peculiar situation, bail granted to the applicant by a court higher in hierarchy to this court does create a material change in the circumstances in favor of the applicant,” the order reads.
The court also noted that many of the witnesses are common in all three FIRs, and the Delhi High Court had considered the merit of the case in two of the other FIRs while granting bail.
The trial court observed, “In that situation, for this court, there may not be a reason to take a different view. This material change in the circumstance, in itself, becomes a ground to grant bail to the accused/applicant in this case as well. Hence, the application is allowed.”
Advocate Tara Narula, representing the accused, highlighted the bail orders issued by the Delhi High Court in other FIRs and argued that the present case is based on similar evidence and circumstances since the incidents reported in the three FIRs were closely related in terms of time and location.
In contrast, the bail plea faced opposition from Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey. He argued that a bail order is not a binding precedent and anything stated in the bail order pertains solely to that specific case. Therefore, bail granted in other cases cannot be considered a material change of circumstance for this case.
Furthermore, Pandey expressed concerns about the release of the applicant, stating that public witnesses residing in the same vicinity might feel threatened as a result.
