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.
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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
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.
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. 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.
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 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
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
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.
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.
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.
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 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) 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
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.
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. 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.
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 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
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
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.
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.
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.
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 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) 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
1. The document summarizes a court case where the petitioner is seeking bail in relation to FIR No. 39/2020 for offenses related to rioting, murder, and arson that occurred on February 24, 2020 in Delhi.
2. The prosecution argues that CCTV footage and eyewitness statements identify the petitioner as participating in the riots and killing of one Dilbar Singh Negi by burning down the building he was in.
3. However, the petitioner argues that the eyewitness statements and mobile location data are unreliable for identifying him, and that he merely lives near the incident site and works as an auto rickshaw driver.
4. Considering the flaws in the evidence and that the trial will take significant
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.
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 order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
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.
The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Mohd. Danish in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, etc. during the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the disclosure statement attributed to him was fabricated and inadmissible. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was actively involved in the riots based on witness statements and call detail records placing him at the scene. The court examined the medical evidence showing the injuries on the deceased police officer but noted that it was unclear who delivered the fatal blow.
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.
This document details a case of kidnapping, human trafficking, and sexual abuse involving the complainant's family members over many years. It states that in 2005, the complainant's pregnant wife and minor daughter were kidnapped with the help of his father-in-law and pushed into sex work and trafficking. Numerous police complaints have been filed but no action was taken. The document provides photos and details of instances where the complainant has encountered his wife and identified other victims at various locations in Delhi, Bihar, and Jharkhand. It requests investigation and legal action in the matter.
The document is a court order regarding an application for bail by Preet Singh, who has been accused of offenses under the IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act related to organizing a gathering without permission. The investigating officer opposed bail, citing video evidence of Singh's presence and the risk of further offenses. However, the court denied bail, noting that while the offenses are bailable, Singh's case differs from a previously bailed accused who was not seen inciting crowds in video clips as Singh was. The court found that further investigation was needed and denied bail at this stage.
The document appears to be a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding two criminal appeals (Crl.A.Nos.705 & 706 of 2020) challenging a lower court's order granting bail to two respondents (Allan Shuaib and Thwaha Fasal) accused of terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the respondents for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court heard arguments from the NIA and the respondents' lawyers regarding whether the lower court properly analyzed evidence and applied legal standards in granting bail.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application hearing for a case involving charges of rape, fraud, criminal intimidation, and unlawful religious conversion. The applicant, Sonu Rajpoot, sought bail while awaiting trial. The court summarized the arguments of the applicant's lawyer, who argued that the victim was a consenting adult and the applicant was falsely accused due to a religious conversion dispute. The prosecution opposed bail. Considering the circumstances, lack of evidence tampering, and consent between the applicant and victim, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions including not harassing the victim.
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 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 applicant Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim filed a bail application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking bail in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
2) It was argued for the applicant that he is the first offender and has been in custody since August 23, 2021. His custodial interrogation is no longer required.
3) The prosecution opposed the bail plea submitting that various identity cards of different names were recovered from the applicant. The court examined the facts of the case and granted bail to the applicant with various conditions.
This document summarizes a bail hearing for Ashwani Upadhyay, who was arrested under several sections of the IPC as well as epidemic disease and disaster management acts. His lawyers argued that he left the site of the alleged offenses before they occurred and is not visible in any videos. The prosecution argued he organized the event and his custody is needed for a thorough investigation. After hearing both sides, the court considered the guidelines on reducing prison overcrowding during the pandemic in deciding whether to grant bail.
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.
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.
Un code of conduct for law enforcement officialsZahidManiyar
This document outlines a code of conduct for law enforcement officials with the following key points:
1) Law enforcement officials must fulfill their duty to serve the community, protect all people from illegal acts, and respect human dignity and human rights.
2) Force may only be used when strictly necessary and to the extent required to perform their duties. Firearms should only be used as an extreme measure.
3) Law enforcement officials must not commit any acts of corruption or torture, or invoke superior orders to justify such acts. They must also secure medical attention for anyone in their custody.
Mha model code of conduct - indian policeZahidManiyar
The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs outline a code of conduct for police in India. The code of conduct establishes 13 principles for police, including that they must faithfully uphold the constitution, respect citizens' rights, use minimal force, cooperate with the public, maintain high integrity, and promote national unity and equality. The guidelines aim to prevent police corruption by establishing standards of impartial enforcement of the law, appropriate use of powers, and high personal and professional ethics.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 1 of 12
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.05.2021
Pronounced on: 21.05.2021
+ BAIL APPLN.1264/2021
PANKAJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjiv Dagar, Mr.Yogesh
Verma, Mr.Gaurav Arora, Mr.Sumit
Sehrawat, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan & Mr.Rajat Nair,
Special Public Prosecutors,
Mr.Shantanu Sharma & Mr.Dhruv
Pande, Advocates with Inspector
Vinod Ahlawat
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is accused in FIR No. 35/2020, under Sections
302/147/148/149/427/432/435/120B/34 IPC, registered at police station
Gokulpuri, Delhi and is in judicial custody since 10.03.2020.
2. Petitioner’s bail application was dismissed by the learned trial court
vide order dated 15.09.2020, which has been challenged in this petition on
the ground that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial court
2. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 2 of 12
has ignored the material facts and evidence available on record.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
charge sheet filed before the trial court does not reflect ‘grave suspicion’
qua involvement of petitioner in the offence in question and he has been
arrested on an unfounded presumption that he was a part of unlawful
assembly.
4. The case of prosecution is that on 27.02.2020 at 09:40 PM, Duty
Officer vide DD No. 24-B, received a call from SHO, Gokulpuri that a
dead body was found in Bhagirathi Vihar Nala near Pulia. The said call
was assigned to ASI Ram Pass, who along with ASI Manvir reached the
spot and found three dead bodies lying in the nala on both sides of the Jal
Board Pulia. A burnt motorcycle was also lying there and 20 steps away, a
plastic visor of a motorcycle bearing No. DL-5SBA-7168 was also lying
there, which were taken into custody. The dead body pertaining to the FIR
in question was found adjacent to the Jal Board Pulia, Bhagirathi Vihar and
marked as “A”. The dead body was sent to G.T.B. Hospital where the
doctor vide MLC (B) No. BD/758/03/2020 declared the person brought
dead.
5. During the course of investigation, the dead body was identified as
3. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 3 of 12
Hashim Ali, son of Babu Khan. The Post mortem of the dead body was
conducted at the hospital and as per Post Mortem Report No. 358/2020
dated 29/02/2020 the cause of death is shock as a result of ante mortem
injuries to head and abdomen produced by blunt force impact. Further
opined that the injuries sustained are sufficient to independently cause
death in ordinary course of nature.
6. During further investigation, clothes and other samples were seized
from the hospital by the Investigating Officer, crime scene was inspected,
surveillance was kept on the suspects and different PCR calls were
collected and scrutinized. After scrutinization of PCR calls, it was found
that total five calls were made by the eyewitnesses and amongst those, two
calls on 26.02.2020 were identified. Out of these two calls, one call was
made by eye witness Narottam Singh and another was made by eye witness
Amit Kumar and their statements were recorded on 06.03.2020 and
12.03.2020 respectively. Upon further investigation, another eye witness
was identified as Shalu Gaur, whose statement was also recorded on
12.03.2022.
7. It is further the case of prosecution; at the time of investigation, it
transpired that three persons were continuously observing the course of
4. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 4 of 12
investigation and were therefore questioned. They disclosed their names as
Mohit Sharma, Shivam Bhardwaj and Dimple Rai and their mobile phones
were checked. Mohit Sharma and Shubam Bhardwaj were found to be
members of whatsapp group namely “Kattar Hindu Ekta”, which was
found to be created on 25.02.2020. This group had various incriminating
messages from the members of the group, especially one Lokesh Solanki,
who was apprehended and after consistent interrogation, he disclosed the
names of persons who were actively involved in the riots and petitioner is
one of those persons. He further disclosed that he along with his other
associates, including petitioner, had killed nine persons of other
community, including Hashim Ali and his elder brother Aamir Khan and
threw their bodies in ganda nala and burnt their vehicles to hide their
identities.
8. In furtherance to disclosure of Lokesh Solanki, petitioner was
arrested and in his disclosure statement petitioner admitted having been
involved in the present case and also in the killing of nine persons of other
community. He also disclosed of throwing the weapon of offence i.e.
danda in the ganda nala, but the same could not be recovered.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that statement of Mohit,
5. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 5 of 12
Shivam and Dimple recorded in this case is either hearsay or they
themselves are trying to avoid prosecution, as they were seen roaming
around the interrogative team when crime team investigated the crime spot
on 07.03.2020. Further submitted that statement of eyewitnesses, namely,
Narottam Singh, Amit Kumar and Shalu Guar, is incredible and with
contradictions.
10. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that eye witness Narottam
Singh is also a witness in seven other FIRs and he is a planted /stock
witness and therefore, his statement is not credible. Learned counsel next
submitted that in all other FIR cases, this witness has not made any PCR
call which shows that he himself was part of the mob, otherwise he had no
reason to roam in the tensed area despite restrictions under Section 144
Cr.P.C. It was also stated that as per GD Entry 717A dated 26.02.2020, one
muslim had jumped into nala to save his life from the mob, whereas as per
MLC the death is not because of drowning.
11. Learned counsel next submitted that another eye witness Amit
Kumar is a planted witness, as he is also witness in four other cases.
Further submitted that official witness, Head Constable Vipin, had also
surprisingly heard names of nine accused out of mob of 200-250 persons,
6. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 6 of 12
though he could not see their faces, as they were covered with masks.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that statement of witness
Shalu Gaur’s also cannot be relied upon, who is said to be running a private
parking, as at the relevant time due to Section 144 Cr.P.C., his presence in
the area cannot be believed.
13. Next submitted that Call Detail Record of the petitioner also does not
match with that of deceased and at the relevant time, petitioner was at his
home and that petitioner is innocent and the material available in the charge
sheet does not in any way implicate petitioner and so, he deserves to be
released on bail.
14. In support of petitioner’s case, learned counsel relied upon decision
of this Court in Uttam Tyagi Vs. State dated 18.12.2020 and Pawan
Kumar Vs. State dated 11.01.2021 vide which accused have been granted
bail due to missing of direct evidence such like CCTV footage, to submit
that case of petitioner is in identical situation. Further submitted that the
two accused Lalit and Pawan Kumar involved in the murder of Aamir
Khan, brother of petitioner, have been granted bail by this Court in Lalit
Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) vide order dated 24.09.2020 and Pawan
Kumar @ Pawan Vs. State & Ors. dated 20.10.2020 and allegations
7. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 7 of 12
against them was of being part of the mob and so, petitioner also deserves
bail in this FIR case.
15. On the contrary, the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner were vehemently opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor,
who submitted that out of total 27 PCR calls, caller of two PCR calls were
traced. The PCR caller - Narottam Singh was traced and examined and in
his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has categorically
identified the petitioner as one of the assailants of deceased.
16. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that other eye
witnesses Amit Kumar and Shalu Gaur have also identified the petitioner
and described the entire incident in their statements.
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor next submitted that role assigned
to the petitioner in the present FIR case is not confined to participating in
the mob of rioters but he is amongst the conspirators who designed the
killing of persons belonging to other community.
18. Next submitted that as per call detail record of petitioner, he is found
to be present at the crime spot at the time of incident. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor also pointed out that petitioner’s role in the whatsapp
group “Kattar Hindu Ekta” is still under scrutiny and the allegations
8. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 8 of 12
levelled against him are grave in nature and if released on bail, petitioner
may threat the eye witness who are living in the same area or will flee from
the judicial process and therefore, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
19. The rival contentions raised by both the sides were heard at length
and the material placed on record has been carefully considered.
20. Pertinently, charge sheet in this case has already been filed. A
perusal of copy of charge sheet placed on record shows that co-accused
Lokesh Solanki, Prince, Ankit Chaudhary, Sumit Chaudhary@ Badshah,
Jatin Shanua, Rishabh Chaudhary, Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, Himanshu
Thakur, Tinku Arora, Sahil@ Babu and Sandeep @ Mogli have disclosed
name of petitioner having been involved in the mob and in brutal killing of
nine persons of other community, including deceased. Besides there are
statements of eye witnesses Narottam Singh, Amit Kumar and Shalu Gaur.
21. The plea put-forth by the petitioner that eye witness Narottam Singh
is a witness in seven other FIR cases and eye witness Amit Kumar is also a
witness in four other FIR cases and they are therefore planted /stock
witnesses. However, it is not required to be gone into at this stage for the
purpose of grant or refusal of bail. This Court has to only form a prima
9. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 9 of 12
facie opinion and is not required to in depth analyse the statements of
witnesses. Whether or not these witnesses are credible, is a matter of trial.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020)
2 SCC 118 has held as under:-
“12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant
of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among
which the nature of the offence, the severity of the
punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the
accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for
courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of
bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the
grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a
detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the
accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is
required to examine whether there is a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence and on a balance of the
considerations involved, the continued custody of the
accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice
system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an
appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be
guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power
to set aside bail.”
10. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 10 of 12
23. Further, this Court in BAIL APPLN. 3896/2020, titled as Uttam
Tyagi Vs. (NCT) of Delhi, decided on 18.12.2020, had granted bail to the
accused in FIR No. 52/2020, registered at police station Jafrabad, Delhi
because there was no CCTV footage and from the DVR of two cameras
sent to FSL, no data could be retrieved. Again, in the said FIR i.e. 52/2020,
vide BAIL APPLN. 4195/2020, titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State, this
court had granted bail to co-accused giving parity with Uttam Tyagi.
24. The plea of petitioner that similar to those cases, there is no CCTV
footage in the present case and so, petitioner’s involvement in the offence
is not proved, cannot be accepted, as there may not be technical evidence in
the form of CCTV footage but the call detail record of petitioner shows his
presence at the spot of crime on the day of incident and his participation in
“Kattar Hindu Ekta” whatsapp group, is still under scrutiny. Besides, PCR
call record, statement of eye witnesses and other witnesses, dissuades this
Court to keep a lenient view for petitioner. Moreover, each case has to be
seen in the peculiar facts of the said case and observations made in one
case are not binding on another.
25. So far as another plea of petitioner that the two accused Lalit and
Pawan Kumar involved in the murder of Aamir Khan, brother of deceased,
11. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 11 of 12
who are accused in FIR No. 37/2020, registered at police station Gokalpuri,
Delhi, have been granted bail by this Court [in BAIL APPLN.2573/2000,
titled as Lalit Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) vide order dated 24.09.2020 and
in BAIL APPLN. 2935/2020, titled as Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Vs. State &
Ors., vide order dated 20.10.2020] is concerned, this Court finds that
accused Lalit was granted bail because the allegations against him
pertained to Section 412 IPC for having recovered phone of deceased from
his possession and there was no evidence to show his participation in riots,
murder or any mischief. Similarly, accused Pawan Kumar @ Pawan has
been granted bail on parity with co-accused Lalit, as the role assigned to
him by the prosecution was similar to that of Lalit.
26. However, in the present case, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are grave in nature. In the alleged incident a young boy of 19
years has lost his life. As per post mortem report, 42 grievous injuries were
found on the person of the deceased which proved fatal for him. The case is
pending at the stage of framing of charge. Besides present case, petitioner
is implicated in eight other FIR cases and the apprehension expressed by
prosecution that if released on bail, petitioner may threaten or influence the
witnesses, is not misplaced. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court
12. Bail Appln. 1264/2021 Page 12 of 12
is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
27. This petition is accordingly dismissed while making it clear that any
observation made herein shall not influence the case of either side on
merits during trial.
28. A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court and Jail
Superintendent concerned for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2021
r