1) Five individuals - Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, and Vikram Thakur - filed separate bail applications regarding their involvement in protests against the CAA that turned violent.
2) The court dismissed the bail application of Khalid Saifi due to the serious allegations against him, including instigating the mob and providing a firearm to another accused.
3) The court granted bail to Ishrat Jahan, Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, and Vikram Thakur as no overt unlawful acts were attributed to them and they had already spent over 20 days in custody. Bail was granted with conditions including surrendering pass
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1) The document summarizes a court case involving multiple defendants charged with rioting, arson, murder, and weapons offenses.
2) It describes the alleged incident on February 25, 2020 where a mob burned down a home, killed a man, and stole property.
3) The investigation led to the arrest of several defendants based on disclosures and evidence, though the defense argues the defendants have been falsely implicated and questions the reliability and timing of witness statements.
This document summarizes a court case involving the petitioner Arun Sharma filing a writ petition against the state of Madhya Pradesh and others regarding violations of his rights. The petitioner alleges that police forcibly evicted him from his shop, detained and beat him, and published his photo identifying him as a criminal without cause. The court discusses the issues raised and arguments made by amicus curiae that publishing photos and details of an accused person violates their fundamental rights and privacy unless convicted. The court is considering whether executive instructions can override constitutional rights and whether compensation is due for rights violations of an innocent person.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1) The document summarizes a court case involving multiple defendants charged with rioting, arson, murder, and weapons offenses.
2) It describes the alleged incident on February 25, 2020 where a mob burned down a home, killed a man, and stole property.
3) The investigation led to the arrest of several defendants based on disclosures and evidence, though the defense argues the defendants have been falsely implicated and questions the reliability and timing of witness statements.
This document summarizes a court case involving the petitioner Arun Sharma filing a writ petition against the state of Madhya Pradesh and others regarding violations of his rights. The petitioner alleges that police forcibly evicted him from his shop, detained and beat him, and published his photo identifying him as a criminal without cause. The court discusses the issues raised and arguments made by amicus curiae that publishing photos and details of an accused person violates their fundamental rights and privacy unless convicted. The court is considering whether executive instructions can override constitutional rights and whether compensation is due for rights violations of an innocent person.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a case related to violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Mohd Ayyub, seeks bail in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, assaulting public servants, and murder. The prosecution argues that the petitioner was identified on CCTV footage going towards the scene of crime and was part of a pre-meditated assault on police personnel. The petitioner's counsel argues that he has been falsely implicated and was merely present as a bystander with no involvement in the violence. The court hears arguments from both sides and reviews video evidence before considering whether to grant bail to the petitioner.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding a preventive detention order passed against a man under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The detention order was based on 5 FIRs filed against the man for cheating by collecting over 50 lakhs rupees from victims by promising high returns through stock market investments. The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the detention order. The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that dismissal.
1) The petitioner seeks bail in an FIR registered for rioting and murder that took place on February 25th, 2020 near Shamshan Ghat, Kabir Nagar during protests against CAA.
2) The prosecution relies on evidence that the petitioner damaged CCTV cameras the previous day and a witness claims to have seen the petitioner at the scene of the crime.
3) Video evidence does not show the petitioner at the scene and the court doubts the witness could reliably identify people from their house during a large riot.
4) Considering the nature of evidence and the time in custody, the court grants the petitioner bail subject to conditions.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
The Supreme Court of India granted leave in an appeal regarding the denial of anticipatory bail to an appellant. The court analyzed Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and previous court judgments on the interpretation of this section. The court agreed with the view that Section 170 does not impose an obligation on investigatory officers to arrest every accused when filing a chargesheet. The word "custody" in Section 170 refers to presenting the accused in court, not requiring police or judicial custody. If the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation and there is no reason to believe they will abscond, arrest is not necessary. Insisting on arrest as a prerequisite for accepting a chargesheet violates the intent of Section 170 and personal liberty. In this case
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding bail application number 2474/2021. The order provides background on the case, which involves violence and riots that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner is seeking bail in an FIR related to the violence. The order discusses the facts of the case, evidence and identification of the petitioner in videos from the scene, arguments from the petitioner's lawyer and the state, and the court's consideration of whether bail should be granted. Ultimately, the court provides a detailed summary of the arguments from both sides and the facts of the case in considering the bail application.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Irshad Ali, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence. The prosecution claims there is evidence from CCTV footage and witness statements identifying the petitioner at the scene of the crime attacking police with a stick. The petitioner's counsel argues there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner and his arrest 9 months later was unjustified. The court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed video evidence before considering whether to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court notes that the complainant and petitioner have settled the matter amicably. While the court acknowledges the settlement, it directs the petitioner to perform one month of community service at a de-addiction center. The petitioner is also fined Rs. 100,000 to be paid to various organizations. The court disposes of the petition after these directions, warning the petitioner not to engage in such behavior again.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
The document is a court judgment regarding a bail application. It summarizes the following key details:
1) The petitioner sought bail in an FIR for offenses related to rioting and attacking police officers, resulting in one death and injuries.
2) The prosecution argued footage showed the petitioner as part of the mob pelting stones, but the identification was unclear.
3) The petitioner argued he suffered from a mental disorder at the time and a co-accused received bail, but the court said mental state is a trial matter.
4) Considering the unclear identification and time already served, the court granted bail with conditions but made no comment on the case merits.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Bhupender Tomar @ Pinki Chaudhary, who has been charged under several sections of the IPC and other acts related to organizing an inflammatory protest. The defense argues that the accused left the protest site before inflammatory slogans were raised and is no longer required for interrogation. Additionally, several main co-accused have already been granted bail. Considering the accused also left the protest early and is not required for further questioning, the court grants bail to the accused on parity with one of the co-accused, with conditions that he not contact witnesses and remain in the country.
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
1) The petitioner is accused of murder and rioting charges related to the killing of Hashim Ali during sectarian violence in Delhi in 2020.
2) The prosecution claims eyewitnesses have identified the petitioner as one of the assailants and his call records place him at the crime scene.
3) While the petitioner claims the witnesses are not credible, the court said it did not need to fully evaluate the witnesses at this stage and denied bail, citing the serious nature of the crimes and risk the petitioner could influence witnesses.
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a case related to violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Mohd Ayyub, seeks bail in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, assaulting public servants, causing grievous hurt, murder etc. The prosecution argues that the petitioner was identified on CCTV footage going towards the scene of crime and was part of a pre-meditated attack on the police. The petitioner's counsel argues that he has been falsely implicated and was merely present as a bystander with no involvement in the violence. The court hears arguments from both sides and reserves its order.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a case related to violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Mohd Ayyub, seeks bail in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, assaulting public servants, and murder. The prosecution argues that the petitioner was identified on CCTV footage going towards the scene of crime and was part of a pre-meditated assault on police personnel. The petitioner's counsel argues that he has been falsely implicated and was merely present as a bystander with no involvement in the violence. The court hears arguments from both sides and reviews video evidence before considering whether to grant bail to the petitioner.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding a preventive detention order passed against a man under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The detention order was based on 5 FIRs filed against the man for cheating by collecting over 50 lakhs rupees from victims by promising high returns through stock market investments. The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the detention order. The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that dismissal.
1) The petitioner seeks bail in an FIR registered for rioting and murder that took place on February 25th, 2020 near Shamshan Ghat, Kabir Nagar during protests against CAA.
2) The prosecution relies on evidence that the petitioner damaged CCTV cameras the previous day and a witness claims to have seen the petitioner at the scene of the crime.
3) Video evidence does not show the petitioner at the scene and the court doubts the witness could reliably identify people from their house during a large riot.
4) Considering the nature of evidence and the time in custody, the court grants the petitioner bail subject to conditions.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
The Supreme Court of India granted leave in an appeal regarding the denial of anticipatory bail to an appellant. The court analyzed Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and previous court judgments on the interpretation of this section. The court agreed with the view that Section 170 does not impose an obligation on investigatory officers to arrest every accused when filing a chargesheet. The word "custody" in Section 170 refers to presenting the accused in court, not requiring police or judicial custody. If the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation and there is no reason to believe they will abscond, arrest is not necessary. Insisting on arrest as a prerequisite for accepting a chargesheet violates the intent of Section 170 and personal liberty. In this case
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding bail application number 2474/2021. The order provides background on the case, which involves violence and riots that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner is seeking bail in an FIR related to the violence. The order discusses the facts of the case, evidence and identification of the petitioner in videos from the scene, arguments from the petitioner's lawyer and the state, and the court's consideration of whether bail should be granted. Ultimately, the court provides a detailed summary of the arguments from both sides and the facts of the case in considering the bail application.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Irshad Ali, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence. The prosecution claims there is evidence from CCTV footage and witness statements identifying the petitioner at the scene of the crime attacking police with a stick. The petitioner's counsel argues there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner and his arrest 9 months later was unjustified. The court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed video evidence before considering whether to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court notes that the complainant and petitioner have settled the matter amicably. While the court acknowledges the settlement, it directs the petitioner to perform one month of community service at a de-addiction center. The petitioner is also fined Rs. 100,000 to be paid to various organizations. The court disposes of the petition after these directions, warning the petitioner not to engage in such behavior again.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
The document is a court judgment regarding a bail application. It summarizes the following key details:
1) The petitioner sought bail in an FIR for offenses related to rioting and attacking police officers, resulting in one death and injuries.
2) The prosecution argued footage showed the petitioner as part of the mob pelting stones, but the identification was unclear.
3) The petitioner argued he suffered from a mental disorder at the time and a co-accused received bail, but the court said mental state is a trial matter.
4) Considering the unclear identification and time already served, the court granted bail with conditions but made no comment on the case merits.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Bhupender Tomar @ Pinki Chaudhary, who has been charged under several sections of the IPC and other acts related to organizing an inflammatory protest. The defense argues that the accused left the protest site before inflammatory slogans were raised and is no longer required for interrogation. Additionally, several main co-accused have already been granted bail. Considering the accused also left the protest early and is not required for further questioning, the court grants bail to the accused on parity with one of the co-accused, with conditions that he not contact witnesses and remain in the country.
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
1) The petitioner is accused of murder and rioting charges related to the killing of Hashim Ali during sectarian violence in Delhi in 2020.
2) The prosecution claims eyewitnesses have identified the petitioner as one of the assailants and his call records place him at the crime scene.
3) While the petitioner claims the witnesses are not credible, the court said it did not need to fully evaluate the witnesses at this stage and denied bail, citing the serious nature of the crimes and risk the petitioner could influence witnesses.
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a case related to violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Mohd Ayyub, seeks bail in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, assaulting public servants, causing grievous hurt, murder etc. The prosecution argues that the petitioner was identified on CCTV footage going towards the scene of crime and was part of a pre-meditated attack on the police. The petitioner's counsel argues that he has been falsely implicated and was merely present as a bystander with no involvement in the violence. The court hears arguments from both sides and reserves its order.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Mandeep Puniya, a freelance journalist arrested for offenses including obstructing a public servant during a protest at Singhu Border in Delhi. While the defense argued Puniya was wrongly arrested and should be granted bail, the prosecution opposed bail, arguing he may instigate further protests. The judge ultimately granted bail to Puniya with conditions, noting he is a journalist and keeping him in custody would serve no purpose.
Madras hc bail denied jayraj benicks sept 17sabrangsabrang
The document is a court order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding bail petitions filed by S. Sridhar, who is accused no. 4 in two cases being investigated by the CBI regarding the custodial deaths of Benniks and his father Jeyaraj in Sathankulam police station. The court order denies bail to the petitioner, noting that prima facie evidence indicates he was present at the police station and instigated subordinates to torture the deceased, and that releasing him could influence witnesses and tamper with the investigation as it is still ongoing.
This document is a court judgment denying bail to Shahrukh Pathan, who is accused of firing a pistol and leading a mob during religious riots in Delhi on February 24, 2020. The court reviewed evidence including video footage and photos showing Pathan holding a pistol and firing shots toward the complainant head constable. While the defense argued there was delay in registering the FIR and Pathan was being made a scapegoat, the court found the allegations against Pathan for participating in and inciting the riots to be grave enough to deny him bail at this stage of the trial.
1) The document discusses the bail application of Khalid Saifi who has been charged under various sections related to rioting, criminal conspiracy, and unlawful assembly in connection with the February 2020 riots in Delhi.
2) The prosecution argues that a large conspiracy was behind the riots and that Saifi was in regular contact with other accused individuals. However, the defense contends that Saifi was not present at the crime scene and is being implicated falsely.
3) The judge heard arguments from both sides and considered the chargesheet and case details before reserving the order on Saifi's bail application.
This document summarizes a court case involving an individual, Rambhagat Gopal Sharma, who has been charged with hate speech under sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution argues that the accused gave an inflammatory speech at a public gathering targeting a particular religious community, while the defense claims he has been falsely implicated. After examining video evidence and arguments from both sides, the judge denies the accused's bail application, finding that the video and facts indicate the accused was actively promoting religious hatred and enmity. The judge emphasizes balancing individual liberty with societal security and peace.
1) Meeran Haider, a student activist and member of the Jamia Coordination Committee, was arrested by Delhi Police on April 1st for his alleged role in February 2020 riots in Delhi.
2) Haider was summoned with a day's notice and questioned all day before being arrested under charges of rioting and unlawful assembly. Additional stringent charges were later added.
3) Haider's arrest is seen as retaliation for his peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The police have not provided evidence linking his past speeches to the later riots.
Freedom of speech necessary for success of democracy: Mysuru Court sabrangsabrang
This document is a court order summarizing two petitions filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioners Nalini B. and Maridevaiah S. are seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered for the offense of sedition under sections 124A/34 of the IPC regarding a protest organized without police permission. The court heard arguments from the petitioners, who claimed to be innocent, and the public prosecutor, who objected to bail due to the serious nature of the offense. The court must now decide whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.
1. The document details a court order regarding an application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC by the complainant Saleem seeking directions for the registration of an FIR for offenses allegedly committed against him.
2. The complainant alleges that in February 2020, during communal riots in Delhi, some neighbors attacked his home with guns, stones, and petrol bombs. He called the police for help but no one arrived.
3. The court examines the complainant's application, the police report, and video evidence. It discusses relevant sections of the CrPC regarding police investigation and registration of FIRs. The court will further examine the matter and issue directions.
This document is a court judgment pertaining to bail applications filed by 4 petitioners - Liyakat Ali, Arshad Qayyum @ Monu, Gulfam @ VIP, and Irshad Ahmad - who have been accused in an FIR related to the February 2020 North East Delhi riots. The court heard the petitions together since they relate to the same FIR. While denying bail, the court noted the allegations against the petitioners include actively participating in the riots, destroying property, robbery, and instigating crowds. Eye witnesses and police officials claim to have identified the petitioners. The petitioners' lawyers argued they have been falsely implicated and the witness statements are unreliable.
The document summarizes a court order denying bail to an applicant, Naudeep Kaur. According to the order, Kaur led a group of 50-60 people armed with sticks and rods in an attempt to forcibly enter a factory for extortion. When police tried to stop them, Kaur provoked the mob to attack the police, resulting in injuries to several officers. Kaur has also been accused in two other extortion cases. Given the serious nature of the offenses and ongoing investigation, the court dismissed Kaur's bail application.
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
1. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 5 lakh compensation each, claiming they were illegally arrested and detained by police for 6 days in a criminal case.
2. Police registered an FIR for assault against the petitioners based on a complaint. The petitioners were arrested on the day the FIR was registered despite it being a bailable offense.
3. The petitioners were released on bail by a magistrate but rearrested and produced before an executive magistrate who ordered interim bonds, resulting in the petitioners' detention for 6 days until bonds could be furnished. The petitioners argued this was illegal.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Aarif @ Mota, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and murder. The prosecution argues that Aarif was part of an unlawful assembly that killed Zakir during communal riots on February 25, 2020. However, the defense argues that it is unlikely a Muslim boy would have joined a riotous mob consisting mainly of Hindus. The eyewitnesses did not clearly describe Aarif's role, and video footage does not show him. As the applicant's involvement in the unlawful assembly and murder is unclear, the court finds that he should be granted bail.
1) Preet Pal Singh applied for anticipatory bail in relation to FIR 96/2021 registered at PS Kotwali for offenses including rioting, damaging public property, and assaulting police officers.
2) The prosecution argued that photos and videos show Preet waving a large sword at the ramparts of Red Fort and attacking police, making his role serious.
3) While the defense argued Preet was celebrating Republic Day and his actions do not warrant arrest, the court rejected this, noting no citizen has unlimited liberty to celebrate in any manner, especially in prohibited areas.
4) Considering the overt acts shown and the serious allegations, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, stating custodial interrogation is
The petitioner, Gagan Debbarma, filed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 341 and 302 IPC for the alleged lynching of Saiful Islam. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was part of the mob that chased and lynched the deceased on suspicion of cattle theft. Considering the gravity of the offense and the eyewitness statements implicating the petitioner, the court rejected the bail application, noting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and the parameters for granting it were not satisfied in this case.
1. The families of prisoners held in Taloja Central Prison and Byculla Women's Prison wrote a letter regarding the discontinuation of weekly telephone interviews for family members when physical visits resume.
2. They expressed concern that discontinuing phone calls would cause problems for out-of-town family members who cannot easily travel to Mumbai for physical visits, as well as economically weak and elderly relatives.
3. The letter requested that phone interviews be allowed to continue in a hybrid model, where Mumbai-based relatives could choose a physical or phone visit, to ensure prisoners' right to communicate with family and advocates as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
The High Court of Tripura issued an order directing the State of Tripura Aids Control Society to be impleaded as a respondent. The State and Union of India were directed to issue guidelines to conduct a thorough research of all persons in State prisons to ascertain if any are infected with HIV. If any infected persons are found, necessary action must be taken for their treatment and care in accordance with law to prevent an epidemic. A report on the matter must be submitted to the court by November 9, 2021. The court also requested an Amicus Curiae to assist and oversee the matter.
Report vigilantism and attack on the freedom of religion in meerutZahidManiyar
This document summarizes an incident of communal violence and vigilantism in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India. It discusses the history of communal tensions and riots in Meerut dating back to the 1930s. On September 20, 2017, two members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious group were invited into a Hindu man's home but then detained against their will for over an hour, assaulted, and handed over to the police with false allegations of forced conversion efforts. The police refused to register a complaint about the assault and illegally detained the victims overnight without medical treatment. The document analyzes this incident as an example of the shift in India to smaller scale vigilantism targeting religious minorities, with the tacit support
Christians under attack_in_india_reportZahidManiyar
The document provides a summary of attacks on Christians in India, including two specific incidents in Roorkee and Mau, Uttar Pradesh:
1) In Roorkee, a mob of 250-300 people attacked a church, injuring several attendees. Police did not provide security despite prior complaints.
2) In Mau, a mob accused Christians of conversion during a prayer meeting. Seven people including the pastor were arrested under anti-conversion laws.
It also lists other incidents of threats, violence and false accusations against Christians in various parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states, indicating growing targeted attacks against the Christian minority in India.
The document discusses an application for bail filed by Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. While the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the judge found the evidence linking Imam's speeches to subsequent acts of violence by co-accused to be scanty and inconclusive. The judge granted Imam bail for offenses related to inciting violence but will further examine charges of sedition against Imam.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
This document summarizes a court case revision petition hearing. The judge stayed the operation of the previous court order from October 12, 2021 until the next hearing date of November 12, 2021. The revision petition notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. The trial court record was reviewed and the special public prosecutor and police inspector were present to provide submissions.
This document is a court order from a case involving multiple accused persons. It summarizes proceedings from a hearing where the prosecution requested more time for further investigation into the case. The court allowed more time but imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be split among the accused, noting delays in the investigation. It also ordered the Secretary of Home Affairs to inquire about responsibility for the costs being imposed and deducting the amount from the responsible officer's salary. The case was adjourned to a future date for further proceedings.
The Archbishop of Bangalore expresses concern over the Karnataka government's plan to survey Christian missionaries and places of worship. He argues that such surveys could unfairly target and endanger the Christian community. The Archbishop questions why only Christians are being surveyed, noting that Christians constitute a small percentage of the population. He calls on the government to respect constitutional protections of religious freedom and consider the educational and social services provided by Christian institutions instead of pursuing anti-conversion policies.
For website 211014 cjp-ncm complaint over muslim family in indore chairperson...ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that a Muslim family in Indore, Madhya Pradesh was attacked by a mob of 150 people associated with the RSS on October 9, 2021. The family was threatened and told to leave the village. Family members sustained head injuries and their house was ransacked. The police delayed registering an FIR and instead filed a counter-complaint against the family. The complaint cites other recent incidents of violence and harassment against Muslims in Indore and calls on the National Commission for Minorities to investigate and take action to prevent further attacks.
For website 211013 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to vice chairman (1)ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that on October 10, 2021 in Mau, Uttar Pradesh, two incidents occurred where Christian religious gatherings were disrupted by Hindu nationalist mobs. In one incident, two nuns were attacked, dragged to the police station and detained for hours on baseless allegations of religious conversion. In another incident, a Christian prayer service was raided and the pastor and congregants were taken to the police station. The complaint urges the National Commission for Minorities to investigate these attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and pressure authorities to take swift action. It notes a pattern of increasing attacks on Christians in India by Hindu nationalist groups.
For website 21103 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to chairperson (1)ZahidManiyar
1. Citizens for Justice and Peace wrote to the National Commission for Minorities regarding two attacks on Christians in Mau, Uttar Pradesh on October 10, 2021. In the first incident, a mob attacked two nuns and their driver at a bus stand and took them to the police station. In the second incident, a mob disrupted a Christian prayer service and took the pastor and worshippers to the police station.
2. The letter requests that the Commission conduct an inquiry into the attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and urge police to take action, and issue guidelines for dealing with communally motivated attacks. It argues that such attacks violate constitutional rights and aim to subjugate minority communities through fear.
The document is a response letter from the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) regarding the draft EIA Notification 2020. The key points made in the letter are:
1) The AIUFWP demands a complete withdrawal of the draft EIA Notification 2020 as it weakens environmental protections and public participation in decision making.
2) The draft was released during a national lockdown without proper accessibility or consideration of forest communities who will be most impacted.
3) Weakening environmental regulations could exacerbate future pandemics by further damaging nature.
4) The draft favors industries and projects over environmental protection by reducing scrutiny and exempting many from public hearings and consent requirements.
The applicant Maulana Fazlul Karim Qasimi was arrested in August 2021 for a Facebook post expressing the view that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not terrorists. The applicant's lawyer argued that the court had granted bail to someone in a similar case for expressing such an opinion. While reviewing the case diary, the court found nothing incriminating against the applicant beyond the Facebook post. Given the lack of other evidence, the court doubted if the post alone constituted a cognizable offense. Therefore, the court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond, finding further custody unnecessary in this case.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210ZahidManiyar
This document summarizes two criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala against judgments from lower courts. The lower courts had found police officers guilty of assaulting a complainant while he was in custody. The police officers argue on appeal that the lower courts erred in not requiring sanction from the state government before prosecuting public servants. The High Court examines the evidence and finds that the injuries occurred while the complainant was in police custody, supporting his allegation that police assaulted him at the police station lockup. Medical evidence also supports the complainant's version of events. The High Court dismisses the criminal revision petitions filed by the police officers.
The Kashmiri Pandit Sangarash Samiti (KPSS) wrote a letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir regarding the security of non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley. KPSS has submitted communications over the past year requesting a meeting about this issue, but their requests have been ignored. Over the past 10 days, intelligence reports indicate prominent Kashmiri Pandit/Hindu businessmen will be targeted, and one was killed on October 5th. KPSS warns that if another Pandit/Hindu is killed due to administrative and security failures, they will file a petition with the International Human Rights Commission and launch a signature campaign against the administration for neglect
Lakhimpur kheri press statement from ct_us_06102021ZahidManiyar
The Central Trade Unions strongly condemned the killing of farmers protesting in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. They demanded the resignation of the Minister of State for Home and stringent punishment for the culprits. The trade unions also condemned the police for preventing opposition leaders and union leaders from visiting the families of the deceased. They reiterated their support for farmers in their struggle against the farm laws.
This document summarizes a court order from a Public Interest Litigation case in the State of Uttar Pradesh, India. The order lists several related cases to be heard together on October 22nd. It notes that two specific cases were not listed as directed in a previous order and threatens action against the responsible registry officer. It also directs the respondents to provide the petitioner's counsel a copy of the counter affidavit filed in connected writ petitions.
The document discusses two writ petitions related to prison overcrowding and conditions in Madhya Pradesh. It summarizes the suggestions provided by an amicus curiae to improve prison conditions, which include establishing women's prisons, borstal schools for youth offenders, mental health services, vocational training programs, healthcare facilities, sanitation infrastructure, educational opportunities, and recreational activities for inmates. The court acknowledges the urgent need for prison reforms and decongesting the prisons in the state.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
1. Registration No. 431, 463, 476, 482, 491
Bail Application No. 623 , 676, 692, 706, 717
Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, Khalid Saifi & Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki &
Vikram Thakur V/s State
FIR No. 44/20
PS: Jagat Puri
U/s. 147/148/149/186/353/332/307/109/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms
Act.
21-03-2020 at 4.00 p.m.
Present: Sh. Vikas Kumar, Ld. Addl PP for the State.
IO/SI Kiran Pal is present.
None for the applicants.
The present bail applications arise out of protest against
Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA).
The five applicants, namely, Mohd. Saleem, Sameer
Ansari, Khalid Saifi & Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki & Vikram Thakur have
filed separate bail applications. Arguments were heard earlier by this
court on the four bail applications filed on behalf of
applicants/accused Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, Khalid Saifi &
Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki, whereas arguments on the bail application of
Vikram Thakur have been heard today. Name of Arguing counsels
is stated hereunder as:-
Sh. Abdul Gaffar and Ms. Surbhi Dhar, Advocates for the
accused Mohd Saleem.
Sh. Sarfaraj Asif, Advocate for applicant Sameer Ansari.
Ms. Rebecca John Sr. Advocate with Bhavook Chauhan
and Harsh Bora, Advocates for applicant Khalid Saifi.
Sh. Mohd. Amanullah and Sh. Mishba Bin Tariq,
Advocates for applicant Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki.
Sh. D.K. Singh, Advocate for accused Vikram Thakur.
2. Ld. Counsels for the applicant Sameer Ansari and Mohd.
Salim submit that the applicants are not named in the FIR and have
not participated in unlawful assembly, they are in J/C since
26.02.2020; the applicants have been falsely implicated in the
present case by lifting them from their respective houses in the
evening of 26.02.2020; the complainant has only sustained simple
injury; no recovery has been effected from the said applicants and
the applicants have no criminal antecedents.
Ld. Senior Counsel for the accused Khalid Saifi
submitted that the applicant was brutally beaten inside the Police
Station as a result of which he suffered fracture on both of his legs
and injury on his hands. She has also drawn attention of this Court
to the photograph of the applicant filed along with the application to
show plaster on both his legs. She further submitted that the
applicant Khalid has been falsely implicated in the present case; no
case under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act is made out
against the applicant; Section 332 & 353 IPC are not serious offence
as they are punishable upto three years, whereas remaining
offences under Sections 147/148/186 IPC are bailable offences. It is
also her contention that no police custody remand of the applicant
was sought, which shows that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. She further submitted that the applicant has already
spent 22 days in the custody and there is no apprehension of his
absconding as the applicant is a social worker.
Ld. Counsel for the accused Ishrat Jahan submitted that
bare reading of FIR reveals that the applicant has committed no
offence; the applicant was only a supporter of the peaceful protest
and no specific role is attributed to the applicant except allegedly
making a statement "will die but will not move from the protest site
whatever the police do....". It is further submitted that the applicant
3. is a woman and is an enrolled lawyer since 2006 at Delhi Bar
Council and is entitled for benefit under Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. It is
further submitted that CCTV footage shows the conversation of the
applicant with police from 1.27 p.m. to 1.32 p.m. and her arrest at
1.32 p.m., while the protest as per FIR was from 12.30 p.m. to 1.15
p.m. It is further submitted that the applicant is in J/C since
26.02.2020 i.e. more than 20 days and has no criminal record except
FIR no. 654/14 PS Jagat Puri, which was quashed by Hon'ble High
Court vide order dated 29.05.2019.
Ld. counsel for the applicant Vikram Thakur has
submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the
applicant in the FIR; the applicant was not present at the spot and
was lifted from his house situated at a distance of about one
kilometer from the spot, which can be verified from the CCTV
footage. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant is
Vikram Pratap and not Vikram Thakur, which is reflected in his
educational documents and Aadhar Card; the applicant is a second
year law student and he is in J/C since 27.02.2020.
On the other side, Ld. Addl PP on instruction from IO
submits that bail application of applicant Vikram Thakur and
applicant Ishrat Jahan were dismissed by Ld. ASJ having bail roaster
vide order dated 02.03.2020 and 28.02.2020 respectively. He has
further submitted that the applicant Mohd. Salim is named in the FIR
as 'Samir Pradhan Khureji' and he was arrested at the instance of
complainant HC Yograj, who has clarified the said fact in his under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.02.2020. He also submitted that
applicant Samir Ansari is named in the FIR as Sameer @ Shamim. It
is also his submission that one live cartridge and katta was
recovered from JCL 'A', who opened fire on the police party and he
disclosed that accused Khalid had provided him the Katta. It is
further submitted that 8 co-accused are yet to be arrested and three
4. public witnesses have identified Ishrat Jahan and Khalid, who were
leaders of unlawful assembly.
Heard and perused the police file.
Allegations against the applicants as per FIR are that
Section 144 IPC was imposed in the area of Khajuri Khas. On
26.02.2020, flag march with large police force was held; at about
12.15 p.m. when the police staff reached at PPG Road, SBI Bank,
they heard commotion and noise of firing. They turned back and
reached near community Hall, Masjid Wali Gali, Khureji Khas where
they found large gathering of people whom they asked to disperse.
Some of members of the crowd including the applicants were
identified by Beat Constable whom he asked to vacate the road but
they refused to do so and incited other members of the crowd to
remain there. Upon this, SHO declared and announced the
assembly as 'unlawful' and again asked the people present there to
disperse. But the protesters refused to obey the direction and
applicant Ishrat Jahan incited the crowd by stating that they would
not remove themselves even if they die and whatever police may do,
they shall have their freedom. Khalid exhorted the crowd to pelt
stones on the police so that the police flee away and they continue
obstructing the way in the same manner. After hearing this, Sabu
Ansari and other members of the crowd started pelting stones on the
police and one of them fired at HC Yograj, who hardly escaped.
Police used appropriate force to control the situation and upon
seeing the situation as out of control, police used tear gas shells and
fired in the air. Some of them scrambled with the police and Ct Vinod
sustained injuries due to stone pelting. Ct Vinod was sent to hospital
for medical treatment. Applicants Ishrat Jahan, Khalid and Sabu
Ansari were apprehended on the spot and present FIR was
registered.
In the night of the same day, co-accused Vikram Pratap,
5. Mohd. Salim @ Sameer Pardhan and JCL ‘A’ were arrested and one
desi loaded katta was recovered from accused JCL ‘A’ who had fired
at police party and ran away from the spot. JCL ‘A’ made disclosure
statement wherein he disclosed that accused Khalid had provided
loaded desi katta to him.
Role assigned to applicant Ishrat Jahan is that she
incited the crowd to remain present at the spot as well as raised
slogan of freedom while Khalid exhorted the crowd to pelt stones on
police. Upon such instigation, Sabu Ansari as well as some other
members of the crowd pelted stones on the police personnel present
there. Ct Vinod also sustained injuries which were opined to be
simple. One JCL ‘A’ present there also fired at HC Yograj, who
hardly escaped. Pistol was recovered from JCL ‘A’ who disclosed
that accused Kahlid had provided desi loaded Katta to him.
Right to peaceful protest is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a)
and Art 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, rights of
citizens to protest and gather peacefully without arms is permissible
and said right is backbone of democracy in India. However, the right
to protest is also subject to certain limitations. The problem arises
when the peaceful protest becomes violent and the protestors
transgress the rights and freedom of others. In other words, right to
protest is not absolute right but is subject to certain restrictions.
In our democratic Country, every citizen has right to
peaceful protest, however, resorting to violence during peaceful
protest is not legally permissible under Constitution of India.
In the instant case, protest appears to have become
violent which disturbed law and order situation and to control the
same, police had fired in air and used tear gas shells.
Bail application of applicant KHALID
It is submission of ld. Senior Counsel for the accused
Khalid that disclosure statement of co-accused ‘JCL’ is inadmissible
6. in evidence. It has also been argued by Ld. Senior Counsel for
accused Khalid that the provisions invoked by the prosecution, are
by and large, bailable ones except sections 353, 332 and 307 IPC.
With respect to section 307 IPC, she stated that same has been
wrongly invoked by the IO as the bullet did not hit HC Hemraj and
the injured Ct Vinod sustained simple injury.
The contention of ld. Senior Counsel that section 307
IPC has been wrongly invoked by the prosecution, cannot be gone
into at this stage when there are allegations of use of Katta and its
recovery from JCL ‘A’ who has named the applicant Khalid in his
disclosure statement as the one who provided him loaded katta.
Allegations against accused Khalid are serious as he
had instigated the mob to pelt stones on police party and his name
has also emerged in disclosure statement of co-accused JCL, as the
one who provided him Katta to fire at police party. Investigation is not
yet complete. The contention of Ld. Senior Counsel that accused
Khalid was beaten by police party and he sustained injuries has
been strongly opposed by Ld. Addl PP by submitting that had it been
so, said fact would have been mentioned by counsel for Khalid
before the Ld. MM where he is stated to have been beaten by public.
Considering the seriousness of allegations against accused Khalid
and the fact that investigation is not yet complete, this court does not
deem fit to grant bail to accused Khalid at this stage. Accordingly,
bail application of accused Khalid is hereby dismissed.
Applicants Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki, Mohd. Salim, Samir Ansari and
Vikram Thakur:
Role assigned to applicant Ishrat Jahan is that she
incited the crowd to remain present at the spot as well as raised
slogan of freedom, however, no overt act has been imputed to her
whereby she incited the crowd to take law in their hands and use
force against the police. She is a woman and is in J/C since
7. 26.02.2020. There are no allegation of use of katta by her or
providing the same to any other member of the crowd and thus
invocation of Section 307 IPC against her is debatable. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the applicant Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki
being a woman is entitled to benefit of proviso to Section 437(1)
Cr.P.C. and it is in the fitness of things to extend her benefit of bail.
No overt act has been ascribed to accused Samir, Mohd
Salim and Vikram Thakur. Indeed, as per story of prosecution, 'Mohd
Salim' is also known as 'Samir Pradhan Khureji'. If one looks at copy
of identity documents filed alongwith affidavit of Sheroon, wife of
Mohd Salim, all the said documents records only one name i.e.
Mohd Salim and ‘Sameer Pradhan Khureji’ is not mentioned in any of
his identity documents. Said documents were given to IO for
verification but IO has only replied with respect to Volunteer I card of
applicant Mohd Salim stating that the said I card was issued by Beat
Incharge on demand. Applicant Vikram Thakur has also disputed
that he is only known by the name of 'Vikram Pratap' and not as
Vikram Thakur, which is also shown by his counsel vide copy of
Election I Card and Aadhar Card filed with the application. Be that
as it may, considering the nature of allegations and especially the
fact that no overt act has been imputed to either of these applicants
except that they were part of the mob, the applicants, namely,
Vikram Thakur, Mohd. Salim and Samir Ansari are entitled to benefit
of bail.
In view of above, applicants Vikram Thakur, Mohd.
Salim, Samir Ansari and Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki are admitted to bail on
their furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each
with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. M.M./Link
M.M./Duty M.M. on the following terms and conditions:
(1) That they are restrained from leaving the country without prior
permission of Trial Court;
8. (2) That they shall surrender passport, if any, to the IO within 7 days
of their release;
(3) That they shall participate and join the investigation as and when
called by the IO;
(4) They shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or
influence any of the witnesses;
(5) That they shall inform about change in their address/ telephone
number, if any; &
(6) They are restrained to participate even in peaceful agitation untill
the pandemic of CoronaVirus subsides.
Accordingly, all the five bail applications are disposed of.
(Manjusha Wadhwa)
ASJ-03/Shahdara District
Delhi/21-03-2020