LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/mohd-tahir-hussain-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-20250122/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs State of NCT of Delhi

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 January 2025
Case No.
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 856 of 2025
Bench
Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 911 : 2025 INSC 100
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 911 : 2025 INSC 100
Issue for consideration
Whether a purpose based interim bail can be granted to contest the election or for canvassing as the petitioner himself is one of the candidates.
Headnote

Interim Bail – To contest election or for canvassing/campaigning – FIRs against the petitioner inter alia for rioting and murder of an official of IB – Sought interim bail to participate and contest Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025 – Disallowed by the High Court – Challenge to:

Held: [Per Pankaj Mithal, J.] Interim bail is not permissible for contesting elections, much less for campaigning – Right to campaign or canvass is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional or a human right or even a statutory right – There is no provision for interim bail under the law but lately it has become an acceptable mode of grant of bail in certain special contingencies – If interim bail is made permissible on the ground of contesting elections, it will open a Pandora’s box – The allegations made against the petitioner along with the chargesheet in connection with the rioting and the murder of the official of IB are serious – High Court rightly refused interim bail to the petitioner – No case made out for any indulgence. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 12] [Per Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.] Merely because a statute imposes limitations on grant of bail, the same per se does not oust the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court to grant bail – Though, the allegations and the evidence against the Petitioner are grave and reprehensible but the magnitude and gravity of the offence alleged are no grounds to deny bail, moreso when trial is prolonged – Petitioner’s rights u/Articles 14 and 21 cannot be lost sight of – He is in custody since March, 2020 – As on date, no Court of Law has convicted the Petitioner – He has secured bail in a majority of the cases – Considering these factors, in the facts and circumstances specific of the case, Petitioner granted interim bail for a limited period subject to conditions – Impugned judgment modified to that extent – In view of difference of opinion, matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. [Paras 26, 27, 29]

Keywords: Interim Bail · Purpose based interim bail · Interim bail to contest election · Interim bail to canvass/campaign · Interim bail to contest Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025 · Delhi riots · Murder of an official of Intelligence Bureau (IB) · Right to campaign or canvass · Multiple FIRs · Constitutional Right · Trial prolonged

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with FIR No. 65 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 registered at Police Station Dayalpur, District North East, Delhi in connection with rioting and murder of one Ankit Sharma, an official of the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Apart from the aforesaid case, several other cases relating to riots in Delhi which took place i
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →