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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
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 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.
The court document summarizes a bail application hearing for an applicant named Nitin Raj, who was charged with various offenses related to participating in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The prosecution argued Raj helped create a law and order situation and obstructed traffic. However, the defense argued Raj was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, and had not engaged in any unlawful activity during a prior release. Considering these factors and that the charged offenses carry less than 7 years imprisonment, the court granted Raj bail with conditions that he cannot tamper with evidence, seek adjournments, or engage in further criminal activity.
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 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.
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.
Lawweb.in when court can reject prayer of accused for his discharge from crim...Law Web
The document discusses a case before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws. The complaint alleges that an earlier complaint withdrawn by the wife was tampered with and fraudulently registered by police officials at the behest of the accused. The lower courts had differing views on summoning various accused. The Supreme Court held that the magistrate was justified in summoning the accused based on a prima facie case. It was not appropriate for higher courts to evaluate the merits of the case at such an early stage. The court found errors in the high court's order directing the complainant to produce additional evidence.
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 is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
The document is a court order granting bail to Sidhique Kappan, who was accused of money laundering by the Enforcement Directorate. The court summarized the ED's allegations that Kappan was part of a conspiracy involving over Rs. 1 crore in criminal proceeds related to unlawful activities. However, the court found that except for Rs. 5,000 transferred to a co-accused, no transactions were shown in Kappan's account. Given this and that the conditions for denying bail under the PMLA were not met, the court granted Kappan bail with certain conditions like appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates.
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 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.
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.
न्यायालय को सुल्तान के आचरण पर संदेह करने का कोई कारण नहीं मिला और साथ ही उसके न्याय से भागने की कोई संभावना नहीं थी, फिर भी जमानत की शर्तों के रूप में सुल्तान की संचार विधियों और गतिविधियों पर कड़े प्रतिबंध लगाए गए।
The petitioner seeks to quash the detention order of his brother (the detenu) under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act.
The petitioner argues that the allegations in the detention order are vague and baseless as the detenu is a reputed journalist who has never engaged in any unlawful activities.
The respondents argue that the detention was validly issued to prevent future unlawful acts based on the detenu's past behavior and involvement in anti-national activities, as evidenced by several FIRs. The detention order and materials were provided to the detenu according to proper procedure.
The court must now determine if the detention order was validly issued or if the allegations lacked substance to law
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.
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.
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.
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 is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
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 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.
The court document summarizes a bail application hearing for an applicant named Nitin Raj, who was charged with various offenses related to participating in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The prosecution argued Raj helped create a law and order situation and obstructed traffic. However, the defense argued Raj was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, and had not engaged in any unlawful activity during a prior release. Considering these factors and that the charged offenses carry less than 7 years imprisonment, the court granted Raj bail with conditions that he cannot tamper with evidence, seek adjournments, or engage in further criminal activity.
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 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.
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.
Lawweb.in when court can reject prayer of accused for his discharge from crim...Law Web
The document discusses a case before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws. The complaint alleges that an earlier complaint withdrawn by the wife was tampered with and fraudulently registered by police officials at the behest of the accused. The lower courts had differing views on summoning various accused. The Supreme Court held that the magistrate was justified in summoning the accused based on a prima facie case. It was not appropriate for higher courts to evaluate the merits of the case at such an early stage. The court found errors in the high court's order directing the complainant to produce additional evidence.
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 is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
The document is a court order granting bail to Sidhique Kappan, who was accused of money laundering by the Enforcement Directorate. The court summarized the ED's allegations that Kappan was part of a conspiracy involving over Rs. 1 crore in criminal proceeds related to unlawful activities. However, the court found that except for Rs. 5,000 transferred to a co-accused, no transactions were shown in Kappan's account. Given this and that the conditions for denying bail under the PMLA were not met, the court granted Kappan bail with certain conditions like appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates.
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 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.
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.
न्यायालय को सुल्तान के आचरण पर संदेह करने का कोई कारण नहीं मिला और साथ ही उसके न्याय से भागने की कोई संभावना नहीं थी, फिर भी जमानत की शर्तों के रूप में सुल्तान की संचार विधियों और गतिविधियों पर कड़े प्रतिबंध लगाए गए।
The petitioner seeks to quash the detention order of his brother (the detenu) under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act.
The petitioner argues that the allegations in the detention order are vague and baseless as the detenu is a reputed journalist who has never engaged in any unlawful activities.
The respondents argue that the detention was validly issued to prevent future unlawful acts based on the detenu's past behavior and involvement in anti-national activities, as evidenced by several FIRs. The detention order and materials were provided to the detenu according to proper procedure.
The court must now determine if the detention order was validly issued or if the allegations lacked substance to law
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.
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.
Similar to javed-mohammad-pump-vs-state-of-up-criminal-misc-bail-application-no-53834-of-2022-allahabad-high-court-456296.pdf (20)
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.
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.
1. 1
Reserved
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53834 of 2022
Applicant :- Javed Mohammad @ Pump
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Zaheer Asghar,Syed Ahmed Faizan,Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is
taken on record.
2. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Zaheer Asghar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal,
learned AAG assisted by Sri A.K. Sand and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned
AGAs for the State.
3. This instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0175 of 2022 under Sections 143,
144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435,
427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC, 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 7
C.L.A. Act, 83 Juvenile Justice Act and ¾ Public Property Damages
Act as well as 3 Explosive Substance Act Police Station Kareli,
District- Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. According to the FIR, the accused persons pelted stones on the
vehicles of police party and set the vehicles on fire and also damaged
the public property after Friday prayer. In the FIR 14 persons were
named and more than 200 persons were unnamed. Applicant was
named along with 14 others. It is further alleged, in the incident some
police personnels also sustained injuries and due to the act of accused
persons law and order was severely disturbed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegations
made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant
2. 2
made accused in the present matter along with 14 named accused
persons on the basis of general and omnibus allegation.
6. He further submits, applicant neither participated in the incident nor
he was instrumental for such incident. He further submits, even as per
the FIR more than 200 persons were participating in the incident but
out of them only 14 persons were named including applicant and this
fact clearly suggest that who were well known persons of the locality
they have been implicated by the police and police nominated them in
the FIR including applicant. He further submits, applicant is a social
worker and he used to raise voice against atrocity and only due to this
reason he was falsely implicated by the police in the present matter.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits, there is no
allegation against the applicant that either he was instigating people at
spot or he was leading the mob and as admittedly the incident was a
result of mob violence, therefore, applicant cannot be held liable for the
act of mob.
8. He further submits, although, there is allegation that mob was
hurling bomb too and number of police vehicles were also damaged but
there is no allegation that applicant was either hurling the bomb or he
set the vehicles on fire or on his exhortation or instigation bombs were
hurled and vehicles were burnt.
9. He further submits, there is also no allegation either in the FIR or in
the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that on the instigation of applicant, property was damaged or
vehicles were set on fire. He next submits, although in the FIR it is
alleged that number of police personnels were also sustained injuries in
the incident but none sustained any serious injury.
10. He next submits that number of similarly placed co-accused
persons have already been released on bail in the present matter by co-
ordinate benches of this Court including the persons who were also
3. 3
named in the FIR along with the applicant and case of applicant is at-
par with those accused who were also named in the FIR. He produced
the bunch of the bail orders during the course of argument which is
taken on record.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits, Umar Khalid
who were named in the FIR at serial no. 14 has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide anticipatory bail order dated
28.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 Cr.P.C. no. 7627 of 2022 and similarly another accused Shah Alam
was aslo granted anticipatory bail on 28.11.2022 by co-ordinate bench
of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
U/S 438 Cr.P.C. no. 7782 of 2022. Similarly, named accused Fazal
Khan was also released on anticipatory bail by this Court on
21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 Cr.P.C. no. 10019 of 2022.
12. He next submits, the named accused Mohd. Shahid was enlarged on
bail by this Court on 2.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 47086 of 2022 and Sahab Urf Mohd. Ahmad was
granted bail on 17.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 39511 of 2022. He further submits apart from the above persons
who were named in the FIR there are several other persons who were
made accused during investigation and they were also released on bail.
He next submits as per allegation made in the FIR and in the statements
of witnesses of the present case the case of the applicant is at par with
other accused persons who were named in the FIR and have enlarged
on bail.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits, applicant was
neither arrested at the spot nor any incriminating material was
recovered from his possession. He further submits, although, earlier
also applicant has falsely implicated in as many as 11 cases but in all
the cases he was falsely implicated by the police and in all the cases
4. 4
applicant has been released on bail and criminal antecedents of the
applicant has been properly explained in paragraph no. 40 of the
affidavit filed in support of the present bail application. He further
submits, out of 11 cases one case is of Electricity Act and two cases
relate to violation of Covid-19 guidelines and one case is the present
one. He further submits, applicant in all the cases including the present
one was implicated only due to reason that he is a whistle blower for
his community and always raises voice against atrocities.
14. He further submits number of offences in which applicant is
detained are bailable and except Section 307 IPC and 4/5 Explosive
Substance Act, in all the offences maximum punishment is upto either
three years or seven years and from the perusal of FIR and other
material collected by investigating officer during investigation
including the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie no offence under Section 307 IPC and
offence under Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act is made out against
the applicant and therefore, considering the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & others
reported in [MANU/SC/0851/2022], applicant who is in jail since
10.6.2022 is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submits that in the incident number of
police vehicles were damaged and applicant along with other accused
persons promoted enmity between different groups on the grounds of
religion and race.
16. He further submits, the act of the applicant was prejudicial to
national integration and from the FIR itself it appears that applicant
along with other accused persons tried to create terror among the
common people and law and order was badly disturbed. He further
submits in the incident as many as three police personnels were
sustained injuries and as they are police personnels, therefore, merely
5. 5
on the ground that they sustained minor injuries, the act of accused
persons including applicant cannot be diluted.
17. Learned AAG further urged although, in the incident as many as
more than 200 person participated but as applicant and 13 others were
actively participated, therefore, they were identified by the police
personnels and applicant was the person who was instrumental for such
incident and this fact is evident from the statement of accused persons
including the statement of applicant recorded during investigation.
18. He further pointed out that from the statements of co-accused
persons recorded during investigation it is evident that applicant was
the principal accused and he was instrumental for the alleged incident
and on his instigation people gathered and law and order was badly
disturbed and public property was damaged and they created havoc in
the city and security of entire city came at risk.
19. He further submits, even in the statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. applicant stated that he is having grudge with the present
government and he instructed the people to gather at Atala Crossing on
10.6.2022, the date of incident and this fact clearly suggest that
applicant was instrumental for the mob violence occurred on 10.6.2022.
20. Learned AAG produced compilation of case laws which is taken on
record and submitted that in the case of Salim Khan Vs. Sanjay Singh
and another (2000) 9 SCC 670 the Apex Court observed that at the
time of deciding bail application, all the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. should be taken into account and it clearly shows
that even the statement of accused person should be considered at the
stage of bail.
21. He further submits, in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another 2004 (7) SCC 528, the Apex
Court held that admissibility of statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail and it can only be
6. 6
determined during trial and in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra)
the Supreme Court merely on the basis of the statement of the accused
set aside the bail granting order passed by the High Court.
22. He further submits, the law is settled that while granting bail the
Court should consider the nature of accusation, reasonable
apprehension tempering with the witness and impact upon the society
of such incident and considering the fact that applicant was having
criminal antecedent of as many as 10 cases and the incident was of
such nature which greatly impacted the society and applicant was the
principal accused who was instrumental of such mob violence, he
should not be released on bail.
23. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
24. The present matter is a case of mob violence in which more than
200 persons participated and the mob damaged the public property and
also hurled bombs and number of vehicles were also damaged and they
the vehicles were set on fire and in the incident three police personnels
also sustained injuries.
25. Applicant was named in the FIR along with 13 others accused
persons. From perusal of the FIR and the statements of prosecution
witnesses recorded during investigation it appears that general
allegation were made against all the accused persons including
applicant.
26. It is neither alleged in the FIR nor in the statements of prosecution
witnesses recorded during investigation that applicant was either
instigating the people or was leading the mob or he was having any
weapon in his hand or was hurling bomb or set the vehicles on fire.
From the perusal of FIR and statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that general role has been attributed to all
the accused persons including applicant. During investigation when the
statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C.,
7. 7
then they stated that applicant was instrumental and on his instigation
they joined the mob and when the statement of applicant was recorded
then he also stated that he instructed the people to gather after Friday
prayer on 10.6.2022 and we will have to show our unity and we must
prepare for administrative action.
27. In his statement applicant further stated that he did not instruct the
peoples to hurl bombs and pelting stones but when mob gathered then it
became uncontrolled and thereafter he himself any how managed to
escape from the spot.
28. Although, the statements of the accused persons recorded before
police are not admissible but as stated by the Apex Court in case of
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) it can be considered at the time of
deciding bail application. From the statements of the accused persons
although, it appears that on the instigation of applicant they joined the
mob and from the statement of applicant it reflects that he told the
people to gather after Friday prayer to show their unity and also told
them be prepared for action of administration but from these statements
it could not be reflected that applicant either instigated or instructed
them to commit violence. Further, neither in the FIR nor in the
statement of any prosecution witnesses including the statement of
police personnels, it has been alleged that applicant was either leading
or he was instigating the people at the spot.
29. Further, if the statement of applicant is taken as whole then it
appears that he in his statement stated that he did not tell the people to
commit violence and he never told them to either hurl bombs or
damage the public properties.
30. Therefore, if we consider the entire evidence available on record
including the statements of prosecution witnesses and statements of
applicant and other accused persons recorded during investigation then
it appears that it is a case of mob violence and at this stage it can not be
8. 8
said that applicant was instrumental for such violence. It can only be
said that he was instrumental for such large gathering of people.
31. Further, applicant has been challaned under Section 143, 144, 145,
147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504,
505(2), 506, 120-B IPC, 4/5 Explosive Substance Act but offences
under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 336, 435, 427, 504 are bailable
and except offences under Section 307 IPC and 5 Explosive Substances
Act for all the offences maximum punishment is either of three years or
of seven years and as there is no allegation that applicant is either
having any bomb or he hurled any bomb or he caused any injury to
police personnels, therefore, merely on the basis of existence of Section
307 IPC and 4/5 Explosive Substances Act in the charge-sheet he can
not be denied bail.
32. Further, in the FIR total 14 persons were nominated including
applicant and number of such accused persons have already been
released on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court and as per allegation
made in the FIR and in the statements of prosecution witnesses
recorded during investigation the case of applicant is also at par with
these accused persons.
33. Although, applicant is having criminal history of 10 other cases but
his criminal history has been explained in paragraph no. 40 of the
affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it appears
that one case is of Electricity Act and two cases were of violation of
Covid-19 guidelines and in all the other cases applicant is on bail.
34. Bail is a rule and jail is an exception and bail can not be rejected for
punitive purposes. Although, it appears that due to the aggression and
activeness of the applicant people of his community gathered in large
number and thereafter mob committed the violence but considering the
fact that applicant does not appear to be instrumental for such violence
and he is in jail, in the present matter, since 10.6.2022 and number of
9. 9
similarly placed accused persons have already been enlarged on bail,
and also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Satyendra Kumar Antil (supra) case, in my view applicant is entitled to
be released on bail.
35. In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is
allowed.
36. Let the applicant- Javed Mohammad @ Pump be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with
the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
37. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 28.1.2023
KK Patel/ AK Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad