A Delhi court on July 13, 2026 found former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four co‑accused guilty of murdering IB officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. Hussain was sentenced on multiple serious charges, while being acquitted of conspiracy and mutiny allegations.
Key Takeaways
- Tahir Hussain and four co‑accused found guilty of murder.
- Convicted on charges including kidnapping, rioting with deadly weapons; acquitted of conspiracy and mutiny.
- Two co‑accused remain in custody while others were granted bail.
The Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh of the Karkardooma courts delivered a verdict on July 13, 2026, convicting former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others for the killing of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
Background of the 2020 Riots
On February 25, 2020, communal tensions erupted in northeast Delhi, leading to widespread violence, arson and looting. The riots claimed dozens of lives, and IB officer Ankit Sharma was dispatched to calm the crowds. He was later found dead in a drain near a mosque in the Chand Bagh Pulia area. A post‑mortem revealed 51 ante‑mortem injuries inflicted by sharp‑edged weapons and blunt force trauma.
Legal Proceedings
The case originated from an FIR lodged at Dayalpur police station by the victim’s father, Ravinder Kumar, who accused Hussain and his associates of the murder. On March 24, 2023, the trial court framed charges against the accused. In the July 2026 judgment, Hussain was convicted of murder, kidnapping with intent to confine, rioting with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, and promoting enmity between groups. He was acquitted of criminal conspiracy and abetment of mutiny. Co‑accused Javed, Anas, Nazim, and Kasim received identical convictions, while six others were either acquitted or granted bail.
Custody and Sentencing Outlook
At the time of the verdict, Hussain, Nazim, and Kasim remained in judicial custody. The remaining defendants were released on bail pending further proceedings. The court has yet to pronounce the quantum of sentences; a subsequent hearing will determine the exact penalties.
Implications
The conviction of a former political office‑holder underscores the judiciary’s resolve to hold individuals accountable irrespective of their affiliations. It also sends a strong deterrent signal against participation in mob violence and attacks on law‑enforcement officials. The case may shape future policy responses to communal unrest and reinforce the rule of law in India.