Why no bail in one case when bail granted in nine similar cases? Supreme Court on Tahir Hussain incarceration

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said asked the Delhi Police why former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain has been denied bail in a single case related to Delhi riots when he has been granted bail in nine other similar cases against him in relation to the riots..A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the prosecuting agency to address the Court on why interim bail or regular bail should not be granted to Hussain."We have heard on merits and if we are persuaded why cannot we grant interim bail and if not regular bail.... In all other 9 cases where he faces same allegations he has been granted bail and then why not in this one," Justice Amanullah asked.The Court was hearing a plea filed by Hussain seeking interim bail in the Delhi riots case in order to contest and campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as an All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) candidate.The Delhi High Court had earlier declined relief to him..Hussain is an accused in the case concerning the death of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma who was killed during the riots of February 2020 in the national capital. Hussain has been in judicial custody since March 16, 2020.In his petition before the Delhi High Court, Hussain sought interim bail from January 14 to February 9 to enable him to contest the Delhi Assembly elections from the Mustafabad constituency as a member of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He argued that his physical presence would be required for election procedures such as filing of nominations and for election campaigns. He added that although he is an accused in nine other cases related to the Delhi riots, he has obtained bail in all other cases except the case concerning the death of Ankit Sharma..The Delhi High Court declined to grant him interim bail to contest and campaign for the elections.The High Court instead granted custody parole to Hussain to subscribe to oath and file his nomination papers subject to strict conditions including a ban on access to telephone or interaction with anyone other than election officials.The High Court also directed the State to facilitate the filing of the nomination papers.He then approached the Supreme Court seeking interim bail..During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Sidharth Agarwal, appearing for Hussain, highlighted that arrest was made in March 2020. "Till 2020, I had no case against me and after some incidents took place in Delhi it was alleged that incited a mob. After three years of my custody, charges were framed. Main assailants have been granted regular bail," Agarwal pointed out.Justice Mithal was prima facie not convinced that interim bail could be granted to contest polls. "You were granted custody parole. Out of 11, in 9 granted bail. Now you want to contest elections that's why parole was granted to file nomination.. but how can bail be granted?" he asked.The Bench then asked why he was seeking interim bail instead of addressing the Court on merits for permanent bail."Why are you insisting on interim bail as if elections are the only thing left to be done in life? We are not inclined to grant interim bail but for your regular bail (audio unclear)....," the Court said.Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for the prosecution, said that they are willing to provide all facilities to Hussain for custody parole.He also sought time to take further instructions which the Bench allowed."On joint request of parties, list it for tomorrow. Please come prepared. Time for interim bail is expiring. Please mention it tomorrow morning and we will take it up anytime tomorrow," the Court said..[Read Live Coverage]