“Used His Muscle Power, Political Clout To Act As A Kingpin”: Delhi Court Denies Bail To Tahir Hussain In Delhi Riots Cases

first_imgTop Stories”Used His Muscle Power, Political Clout To Act As A Kingpin”: Delhi Court Denies Bail To Tahir Hussain In Delhi Riots Cases Nupur Thapliyal15 May 2021 7:31 AMShare This – xObserving that it is prima facie apparent that Tahir Hussain used his muscle power and political clout to act as a kingpin in planning, instigating and fanning the flames of communal conflagration, a Delhi Court on Saturday dismissed his bail applications in two Delhi Riots cases.Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav denied the bail to Hussain in two FIRs in relation to information received by Sushrat Trauma Centre in relation to gunshot injuries sustained by Pramod and Prince Bansal.”The spread of riots on such a big scale in such a short time is not possible without a premeditated conspiracy. So, now when the applicant found himself up against the wall, 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. It is prima facie apparent that the applicant abused his muscle power and political clout to foment communal violence in the area.” The Court observed while denying bail to Hussain.Apart from arguing that Hussain should be granted bail on the ground of parity in both the FIRs, Hussain vehemently denied the allegations levelled against him and argued before the Court that he belonged to the “Aam Aadmi Party” and is a “victim of circumstances” as he had been caught up in a “political cross-fire” and the allegations levelled against him are “nothing but a political blame game to malign his image”.It was also argued that there was no cogent and legal evidence to connect him with the incident alleged in the matter and that there is no video footage evidence on record to show that he had participated in the riots or caused damage to any property.Arguing that since the investigation was complete and chargesheet was filed in the matter, Hussain also sought bail on the ground that there is no other person in the family besides him to take care of his wife, two minor school going children, a college going son and an elderly mother.On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor vehemently denied the grant of regular bail in both the cases by arguing that the riots were part of large scale conspiracy hatched at various levels all over Delhi in the aftermath of enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the same did not take place spontaneously.It was also argued that the riots were planned before the visit of US President Donald J. Trump to India, as “one group of particular community was aware of the fact that police system would be busy in handling arrangements for Trump’s visit to Ahmedabad in Gujarat on 24.02.2020 and 25.02.2020 and hence, the very timing of riots just prior to the visit of US President Donald J. Trump to India points towards a very deep-rooted conspiracy behind the entire scenario.”Hearing the aforesaid submissions, the Court vide a common order observed thus:”It is prima facie apparent that the “riotous mob” armed with “lethal weapons” had engaged in vandalism, looting and torching of public and private properties and their main objective was to cause maximum damage to the lives and properties of persons belonging to other community. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that the applicant did not have a common object with the other persons of unlawful assembly.”Furthermore the Court did not found merits in the argument put forth by Hussain that he has been been falsely implicated in the matter or that there is no legally sustainable evidence available against him. “In my considered opinion, the statements of witnesses can be said to be delayed when the witnesses are known to the police and yet police do not record their statements; whereas, in a case of rioting, police hardly has any idea as to who were the witnesses.” The Court observed at the outset.Furthermore, the Court observed:”They were in a position to mobilise the local persons from a particular community to come up in arms against the persons of other community and law enforcement agencies to create havoc. The apparent object of execution of such smaller conspiracy(ies) was to make the presence of a particular community felt, to create a rein of terror and to destabilize the law and order position, so that the Central Government could be made to succumb to their demands.”Observing that Hussain misused his official position and political clout to instigate the rioters of his community to wreak havoc on the members of other community, the Court denied him the grant of bail.”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. Even if there were no direct acts of violence attributable to the applicant, he cannot shy away from his liability under the provisions of the sections invoked against him, particularly on account of the fact that his house/building became the hub/centre point for the rioters and rabble-rousers to unleash the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi. The spread of riots on such a big scale in such a short time is not possible without a premeditated conspiracy.” The Court observed.Click Here To Read OrderTagsDelhi Court Delhi-riots Tahir Hussain Delhi Court Denies Bail ASJ Vinod Yadav Next Storylast_img read more

The biota and conservation status of sub-Antarctic islands

first_imgSix island or island groups (Marion and Prince Edwards Islands, Iles Crozet, Iles Kerguelen, Heard and McDonald Islands, Macquarie Island, South Georgia) are considered in this account to belong to the sub-Antarctic region. The environments and biota of these islands are described. The vulnerability of their indigenous floras and faunas to introduced alien species is stressed. The sovereignty and administration of the islands and the conservation issues pertaining to them are discussed. Currently, less than 4% of the terrestrial sub-Antarctic is under statutory protection. Conservation and protection of the sub-Antarctic islands must be based on consideration of the conservation of the southern ocean as a whole.last_img read more