The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
1) The 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 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.
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 The complaint alleges that an earlier complaint withdrawn by the wife was tampered with and fraudulently registered by police officials at the behest of the accused.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 Supreme Court of India granted leave in an appeal regarding the denial of anticipatory bail to an appellant. The court analyzed Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and previous court judgments on the interpretation of this section. The court agreed with the view that Section 170 does not impose an obligation on investigatory officers to arrest every accused when filing a chargesheet. The word "custody" in Section 170 refers to presenting the accused in court, not requiring police or judicial custody. If the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation and there is no reason to believe they will abscond, arrest is not necessary. Insisting on arrest as a prerequisite for accepting a chargesheet violates the intent of Section 170 and personal liberty. In this case
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
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.
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 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 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.
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 Supreme Court of India granted leave in an appeal regarding the denial of anticipatory bail to an appellant. The court analyzed Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and previous court judgments on the interpretation of this section. The court agreed with the view that Section 170 does not impose an obligation on investigatory officers to arrest every accused when filing a chargesheet. The word "custody" in Section 170 refers to presenting the accused in court, not requiring police or judicial custody. If the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation and there is no reason to believe they will abscond, arrest is not necessary. Insisting on arrest as a prerequisite for accepting a chargesheet violates the intent of Section 170 and personal liberty. In this case
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
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.
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 court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
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.
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.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the National Investigation Agency against a High Court order granting bail to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, who was accused in a terrorism funding case. The trial court had rejected bail citing serious allegations against Watali, including acting as a conduit for funds to terrorists and separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the High Court granted bail subject to conditions. In its judgment, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and allegations in detail and concluded that the offenses against Watali were prima facie established. It also noted that he received adequate medical care in jail. The Court allowed the appeal and canceled the bail granted by the High Court.
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.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
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.
This document outlines guidelines for protecting the identities and privacy of parties involved in a sexual harassment case. It summarizes:
- The identities of parties will be anonymized in orders and case files to protect privacy.
- Strict protocols are established for filing documents, accessing records, conducting hearings, and releasing information to ensure identities are not disclosed.
- Breach of these anonymity protocols will be considered contempt of court. Guidelines also apply to related proceedings in other courts.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
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 document pertaining to Special Case No. 03/2020 that arose from an investigated case by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against 4 accused persons. The case involves charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servants from discharging their duties, criminal conspiracy and terrorist acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The prosecution argues that materials in the case diary provide sufficient implication of the accused in provoking violence against police personnel. The defense counsel argues that the materials do not establish conspiracy or make out terrorist offenses. The court considers the arguments and examines the case materials to determine if charges should be framed against the accused persons.
1) The petitioner is accused of murder and rioting charges related to the killing of Hashim Ali during sectarian violence in Delhi in 2020.
2) The prosecution claims eyewitnesses have identified the petitioner as one of the assailants and his call records place him at the crime scene.
3) While the petitioner claims the witnesses are not credible, the court said it did not need to fully evaluate the witnesses at this stage and denied bail, citing the serious nature of the crimes and risk the petitioner could influence witnesses.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
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.
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
1. The petitioner challenged his detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
2. The petitioner was running a business and an FIR was registered against him for illegally stocking and selling oxygen cylinders without a license. A raid found 571 jumbo and 90 small oxygen cylinders in his warehouse.
3. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider that he was already in custody at the time the detention order was passed and his potential release on bail, which is required. The court found no mention of the petitioner's custody in the detention order.
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 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 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. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
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.
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.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the National Investigation Agency against a High Court order granting bail to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, who was accused in a terrorism funding case. The trial court had rejected bail citing serious allegations against Watali, including acting as a conduit for funds to terrorists and separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the High Court granted bail subject to conditions. In its judgment, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and allegations in detail and concluded that the offenses against Watali were prima facie established. It also noted that he received adequate medical care in jail. The Court allowed the appeal and canceled the bail granted by the High Court.
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.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
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.
This document outlines guidelines for protecting the identities and privacy of parties involved in a sexual harassment case. It summarizes:
- The identities of parties will be anonymized in orders and case files to protect privacy.
- Strict protocols are established for filing documents, accessing records, conducting hearings, and releasing information to ensure identities are not disclosed.
- Breach of these anonymity protocols will be considered contempt of court. Guidelines also apply to related proceedings in other courts.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
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 document pertaining to Special Case No. 03/2020 that arose from an investigated case by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against 4 accused persons. The case involves charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servants from discharging their duties, criminal conspiracy and terrorist acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The prosecution argues that materials in the case diary provide sufficient implication of the accused in provoking violence against police personnel. The defense counsel argues that the materials do not establish conspiracy or make out terrorist offenses. The court considers the arguments and examines the case materials to determine if charges should be framed against the accused persons.
1) The petitioner is accused of murder and rioting charges related to the killing of Hashim Ali during sectarian violence in Delhi in 2020.
2) The prosecution claims eyewitnesses have identified the petitioner as one of the assailants and his call records place him at the crime scene.
3) While the petitioner claims the witnesses are not credible, the court said it did not need to fully evaluate the witnesses at this stage and denied bail, citing the serious nature of the crimes and risk the petitioner could influence witnesses.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
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.
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
1. The petitioner challenged his detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
2. The petitioner was running a business and an FIR was registered against him for illegally stocking and selling oxygen cylinders without a license. A raid found 571 jumbo and 90 small oxygen cylinders in his warehouse.
3. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider that he was already in custody at the time the detention order was passed and his potential release on bail, which is required. The court found no mention of the petitioner's custody in the detention order.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 summarizes a court judgment regarding a petition challenging an order extending the period of investigation and detention of the accused, including the petitioner, in an FIR related to the February 2020 Delhi riots. Key points:
1. The petitioner argued he was not given a copy of the application seeking extension nor a meaningful chance to oppose it, violating his Article 21 rights.
2. The court examined whether the accused has a right to oppose such extensions and if they are entitled to a copy of the application.
3. The judgment will decide these two issues: a) right to oppose extensions, and b) right to a copy of the application seeking extension.
This order denies a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner, a political leader, was charged for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for remarks made during a political event. While the petitioner argued the remarks were not intended to disrespect judges or members of scheduled castes, the court found the remarks prima facie showed he remarked that people outside of Tamil Nadu are idiots and no one from scheduled castes had become a high court judge in another state until certain political leaders intervened. The court held it is not justified to embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at this stage, and the petitioner must face trial based
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 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.
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 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 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.
Umar Khalid RBR18102022CRLA1732022_143522.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Umar Khalid seeking bail in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The trial court had previously rejected Khalid's bail application, finding the charges against him to be prima facie true. In this appeal judgment, the court discusses the background of the case, the charges against Khalid, arguments made by both sides, and inconsistencies claimed in witness statements by Khalid's lawyer. The court will consider whether the trial court order rejecting bail was correct or if bail should now be granted to Khalid.
1) The court heard arguments from the counsel for the applicant Mohd. Chand and the counsel for the state in a criminal case involving sections 153A, 295, 505, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
2) The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of disrespecting religious feelings and disturbing communal harmony by performing namaz inside a temple.
3) The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions including surrendering his passport, not contacting witnesses, and appearing for key court hearings.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner, an advocate, for protesting against restrictions on the entry route to the District Court complex in Shimla. The court order provides background details on the FIR and the petitioner's arguments. It discusses the stage at which an FIR can be quashed, prior judicial precedents on quashing FIRs, and examines whether the allegations in this case prima facie disclose any offense. The court will further consider whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed.
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 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.
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 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 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 families of prisoners held in Taloja Central Prison and Byculla Women's Prison wrote a letter regarding the discontinuation of weekly telephone interviews for family members when physical visits resume.
2. They expressed concern that discontinuing phone calls would cause problems for out-of-town family members who cannot easily travel to Mumbai for physical visits, as well as economically weak and elderly relatives.
3. The letter requested that phone interviews be allowed to continue in a hybrid model, where Mumbai-based relatives could choose a physical or phone visit, to ensure prisoners' right to communicate with family and advocates as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
The High Court of Tripura issued an order directing the State of Tripura Aids Control Society to be impleaded as a respondent. The State and Union of India were directed to issue guidelines to conduct a thorough research of all persons in State prisons to ascertain if any are infected with HIV. If any infected persons are found, necessary action must be taken for their treatment and care in accordance with law to prevent an epidemic. A report on the matter must be submitted to the court by November 9, 2021. The court also requested an Amicus Curiae to assist and oversee the matter.
Report vigilantism and attack on the freedom of religion in meerutZahidManiyar
This document summarizes an incident of communal violence and vigilantism in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India. It discusses the history of communal tensions and riots in Meerut dating back to the 1930s. On September 20, 2017, two members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious group were invited into a Hindu man's home but then detained against their will for over an hour, assaulted, and handed over to the police with false allegations of forced conversion efforts. The police refused to register a complaint about the assault and illegally detained the victims overnight without medical treatment. The document analyzes this incident as an example of the shift in India to smaller scale vigilantism targeting religious minorities, with the tacit support
Christians under attack_in_india_reportZahidManiyar
The document provides a summary of attacks on Christians in India, including two specific incidents in Roorkee and Mau, Uttar Pradesh:
1) In Roorkee, a mob of 250-300 people attacked a church, injuring several attendees. Police did not provide security despite prior complaints.
2) In Mau, a mob accused Christians of conversion during a prayer meeting. Seven people including the pastor were arrested under anti-conversion laws.
It also lists other incidents of threats, violence and false accusations against Christians in various parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states, indicating growing targeted attacks against the Christian minority in India.
The document discusses an application for bail filed by Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. While the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the judge found the evidence linking Imam's speeches to subsequent acts of violence by co-accused to be scanty and inconclusive. The judge granted Imam bail for offenses related to inciting violence but will further examine charges of sedition against Imam.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
This document summarizes a court case revision petition hearing. The judge stayed the operation of the previous court order from October 12, 2021 until the next hearing date of November 12, 2021. The revision petition notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. The trial court record was reviewed and the special public prosecutor and police inspector were present to provide submissions.
This document is a court order from a case involving multiple accused persons. It summarizes proceedings from a hearing where the prosecution requested more time for further investigation into the case. The court allowed more time but imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be split among the accused, noting delays in the investigation. It also ordered the Secretary of Home Affairs to inquire about responsibility for the costs being imposed and deducting the amount from the responsible officer's salary. The case was adjourned to a future date for further proceedings.
The Archbishop of Bangalore expresses concern over the Karnataka government's plan to survey Christian missionaries and places of worship. He argues that such surveys could unfairly target and endanger the Christian community. The Archbishop questions why only Christians are being surveyed, noting that Christians constitute a small percentage of the population. He calls on the government to respect constitutional protections of religious freedom and consider the educational and social services provided by Christian institutions instead of pursuing anti-conversion policies.
For website 211014 cjp-ncm complaint over muslim family in indore chairperson...ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that a Muslim family in Indore, Madhya Pradesh was attacked by a mob of 150 people associated with the RSS on October 9, 2021. The family was threatened and told to leave the village. Family members sustained head injuries and their house was ransacked. The police delayed registering an FIR and instead filed a counter-complaint against the family. The complaint cites other recent incidents of violence and harassment against Muslims in Indore and calls on the National Commission for Minorities to investigate and take action to prevent further attacks.
For website 211013 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to vice chairman (1)ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that on October 10, 2021 in Mau, Uttar Pradesh, two incidents occurred where Christian religious gatherings were disrupted by Hindu nationalist mobs. In one incident, two nuns were attacked, dragged to the police station and detained for hours on baseless allegations of religious conversion. In another incident, a Christian prayer service was raided and the pastor and congregants were taken to the police station. The complaint urges the National Commission for Minorities to investigate these attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and pressure authorities to take swift action. It notes a pattern of increasing attacks on Christians in India by Hindu nationalist groups.
For website 21103 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to chairperson (1)ZahidManiyar
1. Citizens for Justice and Peace wrote to the National Commission for Minorities regarding two attacks on Christians in Mau, Uttar Pradesh on October 10, 2021. In the first incident, a mob attacked two nuns and their driver at a bus stand and took them to the police station. In the second incident, a mob disrupted a Christian prayer service and took the pastor and worshippers to the police station.
2. The letter requests that the Commission conduct an inquiry into the attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and urge police to take action, and issue guidelines for dealing with communally motivated attacks. It argues that such attacks violate constitutional rights and aim to subjugate minority communities through fear.
The document is a response letter from the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) regarding the draft EIA Notification 2020. The key points made in the letter are:
1) The AIUFWP demands a complete withdrawal of the draft EIA Notification 2020 as it weakens environmental protections and public participation in decision making.
2) The draft was released during a national lockdown without proper accessibility or consideration of forest communities who will be most impacted.
3) Weakening environmental regulations could exacerbate future pandemics by further damaging nature.
4) The draft favors industries and projects over environmental protection by reducing scrutiny and exempting many from public hearings and consent requirements.
The applicant Maulana Fazlul Karim Qasimi was arrested in August 2021 for a Facebook post expressing the view that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not terrorists. The applicant's lawyer argued that the court had granted bail to someone in a similar case for expressing such an opinion. While reviewing the case diary, the court found nothing incriminating against the applicant beyond the Facebook post. Given the lack of other evidence, the court doubted if the post alone constituted a cognizable offense. Therefore, the court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond, finding further custody unnecessary in this case.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210ZahidManiyar
This document summarizes two criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala against judgments from lower courts. The lower courts had found police officers guilty of assaulting a complainant while he was in custody. The police officers argue on appeal that the lower courts erred in not requiring sanction from the state government before prosecuting public servants. The High Court examines the evidence and finds that the injuries occurred while the complainant was in police custody, supporting his allegation that police assaulted him at the police station lockup. Medical evidence also supports the complainant's version of events. The High Court dismisses the criminal revision petitions filed by the police officers.
The Kashmiri Pandit Sangarash Samiti (KPSS) wrote a letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir regarding the security of non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley. KPSS has submitted communications over the past year requesting a meeting about this issue, but their requests have been ignored. Over the past 10 days, intelligence reports indicate prominent Kashmiri Pandit/Hindu businessmen will be targeted, and one was killed on October 5th. KPSS warns that if another Pandit/Hindu is killed due to administrative and security failures, they will file a petition with the International Human Rights Commission and launch a signature campaign against the administration for neglect
Lakhimpur kheri press statement from ct_us_06102021ZahidManiyar
The Central Trade Unions strongly condemned the killing of farmers protesting in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. They demanded the resignation of the Minister of State for Home and stringent punishment for the culprits. The trade unions also condemned the police for preventing opposition leaders and union leaders from visiting the families of the deceased. They reiterated their support for farmers in their struggle against the farm laws.
This document summarizes a court order from a Public Interest Litigation case in the State of Uttar Pradesh, India. The order lists several related cases to be heard together on October 22nd. It notes that two specific cases were not listed as directed in a previous order and threatens action against the responsible registry officer. It also directs the respondents to provide the petitioner's counsel a copy of the counter affidavit filed in connected writ petitions.
The document discusses two writ petitions related to prison overcrowding and conditions in Madhya Pradesh. It summarizes the suggestions provided by an amicus curiae to improve prison conditions, which include establishing women's prisons, borstal schools for youth offenders, mental health services, vocational training programs, healthcare facilities, sanitation infrastructure, educational opportunities, and recreational activities for inmates. The court acknowledges the urgent need for prison reforms and decongesting the prisons in the state.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
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. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
1
Bail Application No.506/2021
State V/s Umar Khalid
FIR No.101/2020
U/s 109/114/147/148/149/153-A/186/212/353/395/427/435/436/452/
454/505/34/120-B IPC r/w Sections 3/4 PDPP Act & Sections 25/27 Arms Act
PS: Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
15.04.2021
THROUGH WEBEX VIDEO CONFERENCING
Present: Shri Manoj Chaudhary, Ld. Special PP for the State alongwith
IO, Inspector Sunil Kumar.
Shri Trideep Pais, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms.Sanya Kumar and
Ms.Rakshanda Deka, Ld. Counsel(s) for accused Umar
Khalid/applicant.
O R D E R
I have heard arguments advanced at bar by both the sides and perused
the report filed in the matter, the main chargesheet and the supplementary
chargesheet.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of
Constable Sangram Singh, wherein he stated that when he was on duty alongwith
other staff on main Karawal Nagar Road, near Chand Bagh Pulia on 24.02.2020, at
about 2.00 PM, a large crowd gathered on the road and started pelting stones. He
went into a nearby parking lot to save himself, but the mob broken open the shutter
of the parking lot and thrashed all the persons present inside. They set the vehicles
lying parked there on fire. The motorcycle of the complainant was also burnt by the
rioters. He somehow managed to save his life from the rioters. After registration of
FIR, further investigation of the case was transferred to Crime Branch by the order
of senior officers on 28.02.2020.
2. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
2
3. During the course of investigation, on inspection of the building of
principal accused Tahir Hussain and the adjoining area, a lot of debris, stones,
bricks, broken bottles, some glass bottles with liquid, bullets and burnt articles were
found lying scattered on the main Karawal Nagar Road. It was found that the
building of principal accused Tahir Hussain was used by the rioters/miscreants/
accused persons for brick batting, stone pelting, pelting of petrol bombs and acid
bombs. A lot of stones, bricks, glass bottles containing petrol with neck stuffed
with clothes and other material, including catapults were found lying on the third
floor and on the rooftop of principal accused Tahir Hussain’s house.
4. While opening up the arguments, learned senior counsel for the
applicant made a strong pitch by categorically submitting that applicant deserves
parity with co-accused Khalid Saifi, who already stood admitted to bail by this
Court vide detailed order dated 04.11.2020 and as such, it is prayed that applicant is
also entitled for grant of bail in the matter on the ground of parity, as role assigned
to him is on the same page/identical footing.
As a corollary to the aforesaid contention, it is further submitted that
recently the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to enlarge other three co-accused
persons namely Riyasat Ali, Liyakat Ali and Shah Alam on regular bail vide
common order dated 06.04.2021 (passed in Bail Applicatons No.2943/2020,
4174/2020 and 9/20201 respectively) and thereafter based upon the observations
made by Hon’ble High Court, this Court has also enlarged another co-accused
namely Gulfam @ VIP on bail vide order dated 13.04.2021.
5. Besides pressing into service the ground of parity, learned counsel very
vehemently argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter by
the investigating agency on account of “political vendetta to muzzle the dissent”.
Applicant is aged about 33 years, PhD Degree Holder from Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU), Delhi and holds several doctoral thesis to his credit; however, his
professional career which was at the very threshold has been completely derailed
owing to his false implication in the instant case as well as in case FIR No.59/2020
3. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
3
(being investigated by Special Cell of Delhi Police). He was initially arrested on
13.09.2020 in case FIR No.59/2020 (being investigated by Special Cell) and
thereafter 01.10.2020 (i.e after seven months of the registration of instant FIR) he
was formally arrested in the present case. The applicant was not physically
present at the spot/scene of crime (SOC) on the date of alleged incident and
that is the reason he is neither visible in any CCTV footage/ viral video nor any
of the witnesses have specifically named him to be part/member of the riotous
mob. The applicant has been roped in the matter merely on the basis of his own
disclosure statement and the disclosure statement(s) of co-accused Tahir Hussain
and Khalid Saifi. It is argued that no recovery of any sort has been effected from
the applicant in the matter.
6. It is further argued that there is no material on record that in any way
establishes that any meeting took place between Tahir Hussain, applicant and
Khalid Saifi and at the most, it only goes on to show that these persons were in the
same area of Shaheen Bagh on 08.01.2020 without any criminal conspiracy with
each other. It is argued that for the alleged offence of “criminal conspiracy”,
applicant is already facing trial by way of being falsely roped in case FIR
No.59/2020 (being investigated by Special Cell of Delhi Police) and thus, the
applicant cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence twice, which is in total
violation of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India under the doctrine of “Double
Jeopardy”. It is further argued that there is no other independent or legally
admissible evidence of criminal conspiracy available against the applicant.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the following
judgments on the proposition mentioned against the citation(s):
S.No. Judgment & Citation Proposition laid down
1. Indra Dalal v State of
Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31
Disclosure statements are inadmissible
in evidence unless they lead to recovery
pursuant to the disclosure, and cannot
4. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
4
be relied upon to deny bail to an
accused.
2. Rajesh Sharma V/s
Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12372
Disclosure statements are not to be
relied upon to deny bail to an accused.
3. Geedarwa alias Faiaz alias
Md. Faiaz alias Mohammad
Faiyaz Alam v. State of Bihar,
2020 SCC OnLine Pat 395
Disclosure statements not a ground to
deny bail.
4. Avnish Jha v. State of Bihar,
2020 SCC OnLine Pat 699
Disclosure statements not a ground to
deny bail.
5. Sanjay Chandra V/s CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40
Once the charge sheet has been filed,
custody of the accused is no longer
required for further investigation and
the accused is entitled to bail.
6. Navendu Babbar V/s State of
GNCT of Delhi; Bail
Application No.953/2020,
decided on 18.06.2020
Continuation of investigation not a
valid ground to deny bail
7. Devangana Kalita V/s State,
2020 SCC OnLine Del
1092
Existence of multiple cases not a valid
ground to deny bail.
8. Prabhakar Tewari V/s State of
UP, (2020) SCC OnLine 75
Existence of multiple cases not a valid
ground to deny bail
9. Ashok Sagar V/s State,
2018 SCC OnLine Del
9548
Principles regarding grant of bail i.e.
incarceration, during trial, is not
punitive, courts are not to presume that
the accused would flee justice, mandate
of Art. 21, nature of the offence
committed necessarily has a limited
role to play, etc.
10. P. Chidambaram V/s
Directorate of Enforcement,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549
If Triple-test i.e., not being a flight risk,
no chance of tampering with evidence,
and no apprehension of influencing
witnesses, is satisfied, bail should be
granted.
11. Deepa Bajwa V/s State & Ors.
2004 (77) DRJ 725
Supplementary statements cannot be
used to make up lacuna complaint.
12. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
V/s Nitin
Supplementary statement recorded
immediately after incident to be given
5. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
5
2019 SCC OnLine Del 7239 greater credence.
13. Pancho V/s State of Haryana;
(2011) 10 SCC 165
Confessions of co-accused are not a
substantive piece of evidence and a
case cannot be formed on the
confession of a co-accused
14. Prabhakar Tewari V/s State of
UP; Criminal Appeal
No.153/2020, decided on
24.01.2020 by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India
If statements of witnesses is delayed by
substantial time, particularly when the
witnesses were available with the
police, then it casts a doubt upon the
prosecution story and the accused
becomes entitled for bail.
8. It is claimed that the applicant has clean past antecedents and deep
roots in the society. It is submitted that right from the inception, applicant has duly
co-operated with the investigating agency qua investigation of instant case as well
as case FIR No.59/2020 (being investigated by Special Cell) and there is no
possibility of his absconding. The so called eye witness namely Shri Rahul Kasana
is a “planted witness”, whose statement cannot be believed. There is nothing on
record which shows that the applicant was ever in touch with principal accused
Tahir Hussain. The disclosure statement(s) of Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi
cannot be read against the applicant. Similarly, the alleged unsigned disclosure
statement of the applicant cannot be used against the applicant in the teeth of order
dated 04.10.2020, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Annexure A-9, page
40 of the paper book). It is further argued that “pre-trial detention has been
deprecated by the Courts” and “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.” In the
end, it is argued that the investigation in the matter is complete; chargesheet has
already been filed; the applicant is no more required for any custodial interrogation
and no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping him behind bars in the
matter as the trial is likely to take long time.
9. Per contra, the learned Special PP for the State submits that the case is
“sensitive” in nature, which involves the riots which took place at or around the
house of main accused Tahir Hussain. During investigation, it has emerged that
there was a “deep-rooted conspiracy” which triggered communal riots in Delhi. A
6. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
6
web of conspirators, instigators and rioters has been identified and several of them
have been arrested. It is further argued that the riots were not impromptu, but were
conspired with the intent to create communal strife and to malign the image of the
country under the garb of democratically opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act
(in short “CAA”). The conspirators caused disruption by the dual scheme of
spreading misinformation on CAA and causing “Chakka-Jaam” on main arterial
roads, which ultimately triggered the communal riots. It is further argued that the
accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy committed the act of riots in
the area of PS Khajuri Khas as well as PS Dayalapur and a “sense of terror” was
created in the minds of general public. They not only mobilized the mob into a
group of rioters by way of provoking their religious feelings, but also provided
logistic support like lathis, dandas, stones, acids, knives, swords, fire arms, pistols
etc., for committing riots in the area and to eliminate the members of other
community. The “common object” of the accused persons was to cause maximum
damage to the persons and property(ies) of other community. The principal accused
Tahir Hussain, who was holding the post of “Municipal Councillor”, gathered
persons from his community on the basis of religious sentiments, promoted enmity
between two communities on the ground of religion and facilitated them to the
rooftop of his building. The co-accused persons in the matter were very well known
to him and some of them are his close relatives, due to which “meeting of minds”
took place very quickly.
10. It is next argued that a total of fifteen persons have been arrested in the
matter, including the applicant on the basis of his identification by public witness
Rahul Kasana. The learned Special PP has taken me through the statement of PW
Rahul Kasana, dated 27.09.2020, recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C to contend that this
witness had categorically seen the applicant meeting co-accused Tahir Hussain and
Khalid Saifi in the evening of 08.01.2020 at Shaheen Bagh, which duly corroborates
the disclosure statement of applicant.
7. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
7
11. It is next argued that the applicant was part of large-scale conspiracy
hatched by principal accused Tahir Hussain with other anti-social elements, which
has been investigated by Special Cell of Delhi Police in case FIR No.59/2020. It is
submitted that regular bail applications of as many as three co-accused persons
namely Rashid Saifi, Irshad Ahmed and Mohd. Rehan @ Arshad Pradhan have
already been dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 01.09.2020, 08.10.2020 and
07.04.2021 respectively and as such, it is prayed that the instant bail application
also deserves dismissal.
12. In the end, it is argued that although the chargesheet in the matter has
been filed, yet the investigation of the case is still in progress; many persons who
were part of the “riotous mob” need to be identified and arrested and more
skeletons are likely to tumble out of the cupboard as the investigation progresses;
the “conspiracy angle” behind such a large-scale riot needs to be unearthed; and
there is every chance that if released on bail, the applicant may threaten the
witnesses, who are residents of the same locality and as such, the dismissal of the
instant bail application has been prayed for.
13. The learned Special PP has referred to the following judgments:
S.No. Particulars of judgments
1. State V/s Jaspal Singh Gill; 1984 AIR 1503 (Date of
Decision 25.06.1984)
2. Nirmal Singh Kahlon V/s State of Punjab & Ors.
(2009) 1 SCC 441: (DOD: 22.10.2008)
3. State of Maharashtra V/s Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil
Ansari & Ors.; Crl.Appeal No.445/2013, (DOD:
14.03.2013)
4. CBI V/s V. Vijay Sai Reddy; Crl.Appeal No.729/2013
(DOD: 09.05.2013)
5. Rajiv @ Monu V/s State of NCT of Delhi;
Crl.Appeal No.192/2017 (DOD: 08.10.2018)
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at
bar.
8. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
8
15. It is a matter of record that it has nowhere been the case of prosecution
that the applicant was physically present at the scene of crime (SOC) on the date of
incident. It is further a matter of record that the applicant is not visible in any
CCTV footage/viral video(s) pertaining to the scene of crime on the date of
incident. There is no identification of the applicant either through independent
public witness or any police witness of he being present at the scene of crime on
the date of incident. Even the CDR location of the mobile phone of applicant has
not been found at the scene of crime on the date of incident. The applicant has
merely been roped in the matter on basis of his own disclosure statement, fourth
disclosure statement of co-accused Tahir Hussain and disclosure statement of co-
accused Khalid Saifi. Even no recovery of any sort has been effected from the
applicant pursuant to his disclosure statement. The argument of learned Special PP
that applicant had been in regular contact/touch with co-accused Tahir Hussain and
Khalid Saifi over mobile phone and the same is evident from the fact their CDR
location on 08.01.2020 has been found to be at Shaheen Bagh is hardly of any
consequences, as prima facie that does not in any way go on to establish the
criminal conspiracy alleged against the applicant in the matter. Even the statement
of PW Rahul Kasana recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C in the matter merely talks of some
meeting between the applicant, co-accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi on
08.01.2020, however, the same does not disclose about the subject matter of such
meeting. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note here that said PW Rahul Kasana is
also a witness in case FIR No.59/2020, in which case also the “criminal
conspiracy” angle is being investigated by Special Cell of Delhi Police. In the said
case the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of PW Rahul Kasana was recorded on
21.05.2020, on which date he did not utter a single word against the applicant qua
“criminal conspiracy” and now all of a sudden, he vide his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C in the matter on 27.09.2020 blew the trumpet of
“criminal conspiracy” against the applicant. This prima facie does not appeal to
the senses. This Court is aware of the fact that besides the present matter, the
applicant is also an accused in case FIR No.59/2020 (being investigated by Special
9. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
9
Cell). As regards case FIR No.59/2020, it is noted that same is a different case and
the present bail application has to be decided in the context of the present FIR and
the investigation so concluded.
16. I have considered the judgments referred by the learned counsel for
the applicant on the proposition set out against the citations. The judgments duly
apply to the facts of the present case. I may not like to quote all the judgments
except for the judgment in “Devangna Kalita” (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High
Court has been pleased to grant bail to Devangna Kalita in the case of murder and
rioting, primarily on the ground that the material against her was the disclosure
statement of co-accused Shahrukh recorded in the case of larger conspiracy and her
presence at SOC. The case of applicant herein is at a better footing than the case of
Devangna Kalita (supra). After all, the disclosure statement of co-accused Tahir
Hussain, recorded on 11.03.2020 did not lead to any recovery of fact, except for the
recording of disclosure statement(s) of co-accused Khalid Saifi and applicant.
Accused Tahir Hussain is an accused in ten (10) other cases of this cluster of
Chand Bagh puliya, i.e, at or around his house, but in no other case the applicant
has been made co-accused, even on the strength of material sought to be read
against him in this matter. I do not find any rationale in the act of police in
involving the applicant in this solitary case for the offence of conspiracy. If
principal accused Tahir Hussain was moved or actuated by the applicant in meeting
dated 08.01.2020, then the applicant should have been made co-accused in ten
other cases also which is not the case. The police has unnecessarily brought in the
material of FIR No.59/2020 (investigated by Special Cell) in this matter
17. I do not find substance in the argument of learned Special PP that
since bail applications of as many as three co-accused persons namely Rashid Saifi,
Irshad Ahmed and Mohd. Rehan @ Arshad Pradhan have already been dismissed
by this Court vide orders dated 01.09.2020, 08.10.2020 and 07.04.2021
respectively, so the applicant is also not entitled for bail. From the perusal of
10. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
10
chargesheet, it is clearly evident that the role assigned to applicant in the matter is
categorically different and distinct from the role attributed to aforesaid co-accused
persons, as firstly it has nowhere been the case of prosecution that applicant was
physically present at the scene of crime (SOC) on the date of incident; secondly the
applicant has nowhere been captured in any CCTV footage/viral video; and thirdly
neither any independent witness nor any police witness has identified the applicant
to be present at the scene of crime. Prima facie, the applicant appears to have been
roped in the matter merely on the basis of his own disclosure statement and
disclosure statement of co-accused Tahir Hussain. The statement of PW Rahul
Kasana is yet to be tested on the touchstone of evidence.
18. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the learned
Special PP. The said judgments to the extent they lay down preposition of law are
fairly clear, however, the same do not advance the claim of State any further
because of insufficiency of material on record against the applicant. The applicant
cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in this case on the basis of such a
sketchy material against him.
19. At this stage, I have restrained myself from analyzing the statement of
PW Rahul Kasana, dated 27.09.2020 as the date of recording of statement itself
speaks volumes about the credibility thereof. I find absolutely no substance in the
argument of learned Special PP that in a case of criminal conspiracy, the disclosure
statement of co-accused can be read against another co-accused, merely on the
ground that pursuant thereto the CDRs of co-accused were unearthed which led to
the recovery of fact of meeting dated 08.01.2020. The sole evidence of this so
called conspiracy is a statement of PW Rahul Kasana, wherein he stated on
27.09.2020 that he was standing outside a building in the area of Shaheen Bagh,
where he had dropped principal accused Tahir Hussain and thereafter he saw
applicant and Khalid Saifi going into the same building. I fail to understand from
the aforesaid statement how a lofty claim of conspiracy can be inferred. In my
11. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
11
humble opinion, chargesheeting the applicant in this case on the basis of such an
insignificant material is unwarranted. I have deliberately not touched the material
sought to be relied upon by the police against the applicant in case FIR No.59/2020
(investigated by Special Cell).
20. The investigation in the matter is complete and chargesheet has
already been filed. The trial in the matter is likely to take long time. The applicant
has been in judicial custody in the matter since 01.10.2020. The applicant cannot
be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other
persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the
matter.
21. It is a matter of record that co-accused Khalid Saifi has already been
enlarged on bail by this Court vide detailed order dated 04.11.2020 and the
learned Special PP has been unable to establish that the role assigned to
applicant is not similar to the role attributed to co-accused Khalid Saifi. Even
three other co-accused persons namely Riyasat Ali, Liyakat Ali and Shah Alam,
also stood enlarged on bail by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide common order
dated 06.04.2021 (passed in Bail Applications No.2943/2020, 4174/2020 and
9/2021). Thereafter, another co-accused namely Gulfam @ VIP also stood
admitted on bail by this Court vide detailed order dated 13.04.2021.
22. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact(s), I find that the applicant deserves
bail in the matter on the ground of parity with co-accused Khalid Saifi.
23. Accordingly, applicant Umar Khalid, S/o Shri S.Q.R Ilyas is admitted
to bail in the matter on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/
(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court and subject to the condition that he shall not tamper with
the evidence or influence any witness in any manner; he shall maintain peace and
12. State V/s Umar Khalid: FIR No.101/2020: PS Khajuri Khas (Crime Branch)
12
harmony in the locality and shall appear before the Court on each and every date of
hearing to attend the proceedings in accordance with the terms of Bail Bond, which
would be executed by him; he shall furnish his mobile number to SHO, PS Khajuri
Khas upon his release from the jail and will ensure the same to be in working
condition and further he shall also get installed “Aarogya Setu App” in his mobile
phone.
24 Application stands disposed off accordingly.
25. It is hereby clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case.
26. A copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Jail concerned as also to
learned senior counsel for the applicant through electronic mode.
(VINOD YADAV)
ASJ-03 (NE)/KKD COURTS/15.04.2021
VINOD
YADAV
Digitally signed
by VINOD YADAV
Date: 2021.04.15
16:11:07 +05'30'