bail Archives - Page 5 of 8

10 Oct

Delhi’s Karkardooma Court grants regular bail to Shahrukh Pathan who was accused in Delhi riots, but to remain in custody

Prime Legal

Blog #delhiriots, bail

Title: State v. Salman & Ors.

Decided on: 7th october 2023

I.A. No. 06- 2023 (Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan) SC No. 100-2021 FIR No. 49/20

Coram: S H. AMITABH RAWAT

Introduction

The court of SH. AMITABH RAWAT, Additional Sessions Judge (SHAHDARA), Karkardooma Court, Delhi has grated bail to shahrukh pathan who was accused under sections 147, 148, 186, 216 of IPC and section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The accused being charged under section 307 & 353 of IPC in another case will still remain in custody.

Facts of the case

A riot broke out on 24th February 2020, around 11:30 PM at the maujpur chowk of jafrabad between the opposers and supporters of CAA. The protesters involved themselves in shouting slogans which later lead to stone pelting and firing, causing injuries to several police officials and the public.

An FIR no. 51/2020 was filed in in relation to this incident and shahrukh pathan was one of the accused. Charge sheet was filed against shahrukh for two incidents. One under sections 147, 148, 149, 186 & 216 of IPC for causing injury to public and section 25 & 27 of the arms act for possessing illegal weapon. Secondly he was charged under section 307 & 353 for shooting towards police head constable.

Rohit shukla who was one among the public sustained a gunshot injury by the mob at maujpur chowk, shahrukh pathan was identified as the shooter and his bail application was rejected twice in this regard.

Court Analysis and Decision

The court observed that Charges were framed against five accused persons- Salman, Shahrukh Pathan, Gulfam, AatirAtif and Osama from an order in 2021, while the accused Shahrukh Pathan was in judicial custody since 2020. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, was that there were riot committed by an armed unlawful assembly in which Rohit Shukla suffered gunshot injury while two police personnel namely Ct. Deepak Malik and Ct. Raman suffered injuries while they were performing their official duties near Maujpur Chowk. Rohit Shukla identified Sonu Chikna, Aatir and Osama as accused. Shahrukh Pathan was identified by SI Karan Singh, HC Vikash, HC Sonu and SI Jitender as part of said riotous mob/unlawful assembly and who tried to kill Rohit Shukla and caused injuries to police official Deepak Malik and Ct. Raman. After framing the charge, six witnesses were examined.

Rohit Shukla in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, identified Sonu Chikna, Aatir and Osama as accused persons who were part of that mob, raising religious inflammatory slogans and shot at him. Thus, Rohit Shukla (PW-2) has not identified accused Shahrukh Pathan as an accused who shot him. Shahrukh Pathan, as per the charge-sheet, has been identified on the basis of statement of police witnesses as part of the riotous mob which shot at Rohit Shukla.

Court decided that accused Shahrukh Pathan is not alleged to have shot Rohit Shukla but he is said to be part of the riotous mob, which shot at Rohit Shukla. Rest of co-accused persons- Sonu Chikna, Aatir, Osama and Salman being granted bail, the court is conscious of the fact that he has been in judicial custody since 03.04.2020. Finally accused Shahrukh Pathan has been granted regular Bail, on furnishing his personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties.

Regarding the fact that accused Shahrukh Pathan is involved in another riot, where he is stated to have made an attack on the police official on duty, court stated that the case will be dealt with on its own facts. Therefore, shahrukh pathan will still remain in custody for charges under sections 307 & 353.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri

click here to view judgment

27 Sep

Delhi High Court Upholds Travel Restriction in Bail Conditions: Balancing Freedom and Investigation Integrity

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, bail

Case Title: Disha A. Ravi vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Date of Decision: 26.09.2023

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5914/2023 & CRL. M.A. 22214/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Introduction

Disha A. Ravi, the petitioner, sought the setting aside of an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. This order sought the modification of bail conditions imposed on the petitioner earlier in a case arising from FIR No. 49/2021 registered at the Special Cell, New Delhi, under Sections 124A/153/153A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Factual Background

The case originated from allegations of a concerted campaign by banned terror organizations to disrupt the Republic Day national ceremony. A Google Document (“toolkit”) was shared on Twitter, allegedly containing plans for a larger conspiracy against India. The toolkit promoted material circulated by a Canada-based organization, and it called for protests outside Indian Embassies. Vandalism occurred outside the Indian Embassy in Rome, Italy, and violence erupted in Delhi on Republic Day, causing substantial damage. The petitioner was arrested on 13.02.2021, granted bail on 23.02.2021, and had been required to seek court permission before traveling abroad.

Legal Issues

The primary issue before the court was whether the condition of obtaining prior court permission for foreign travel, as imposed in the bail order, violated the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that the condition of seeking court permission for foreign travel was inconvenient and sought modification to inform the court instead.
The State contended that the condition was necessary to ensure cooperation during ongoing investigations and to prevent any hindrance to future investigations.

Observation and Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner and the conditions imposed in the bail order.
It emphasized the balance between an individual’s right to travel and the State’s interest in conducting investigations and protecting the proceedings.
The court noted that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in criminal cases.
It referred to precedents highlighting that inconvenience to the accused cannot be the sole reason for deleting a reasonable condition imposed by the court.
The court concluded that the condition was a rational restriction meant to secure the petitioner’s presence and ensure the integrity of the investigation.

Decision of the Court

The court rejected the petitioner’s request to delete the bail condition requiring prior court permission for foreign travel. However, it directed that the petitioner should apply for permission at least one month in advance, allowing the court to consider the plea and the State’s response promptly. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

8 Sep

Gujarat High Court states the purpose of the bail is not punitive but rather preventive accused is charged under Sections 406, 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Atrocity Act

Prime Legal

Blog bail

TITLE – Babubhai Shamjibhai Ramani Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On August 29, 2023

1862 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

Currently filed appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes challenging the judgement and order dated 2 filed by the current appellant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with a FIR being registered with Savarkundla Rural Police Station, District: Amreli for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3(1)(r).

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current appellant was detained on March 21, 2023, and his bail application was ultimately denied by the learned Special Judge and 4 Additional Sessions Judge in Savarkundla.

Expert lawyer Mr. Vashishta M. Joshi claims that he has been given permission by the legal aid to speak on behalf of the original complainant and that he will file his Vakalatnama right away. He is given the go-ahead to show up, and Registry is told to accept his Vakalatnama. The appellant was not a part of the crime in any way, and even if she had been, the investigation would have turned up nothing necessary, served no purpose, and would have taken a long time to complete.

As soon as the coaccused is released by the Sessions Court, the learned attorney for the appellant pleaded that he is ready and willing to comply with any conditions this Court may impose. Therefore, he has also asked for the benefit of parity, and the appellant must be expanded on regular bail by placing appropriate terms and conditions on it.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Contrarily, a knowledgeable APP representing the respondent – The state has vehemently opposed the current appeal and demanded that the appellant’s conduct also be recovered. He has listed the instances in which the appellant has been charged with crimes and has acted inappropriately around law enforcement. Additionally, he claimed that the appellant is the subject of exterment proceedings and that four offences have been recorded. Additionally, it is claimed that the current appeal must be dismissed in light of the appellant’s criminal history. There is nothing left to recover and discover from the appellant now that the investigation is over and a charge sheet has been filed. The purpose of the bail is not punitive but rather preventive because it is clear that the trial will take some time. Keeping the appellant in jail while the case is pending is preferable to a pre-trial conviction and even otherwise, given the principles of personal liberty.

Bail granted

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

23 Aug

Delhi High Court Denies Bail in 498A/306 IPC Case Citing Extramarital Affair and Mental Torture

Prime Legal

Blog #baildenied, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #husband, bail

Title: SAGAR Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)

Decided on: 11th August, 2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 1968/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a bail application in a case involving offenses under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty towards a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide). The decision was based on specific allegations against the applicant, including his extramarital affair and mental and physical torture of the deceased wife. The court emphasized the devastating impact of discovering infidelity shortly after marriage on the victim’s emotional well-being.

Facts

The case revolved around the marriage between the deceased, Panina, and the accused applicant. Tragically, Panina took her own life just 13 days after their marriage, leading to the filing of an FIR by her father. The FIR alleged that the applicant had engaged in an extramarital affair and was responsible for Panina’s suicide.

Analysis

The applicant’s counsel argued for his innocence, claiming a harmonious relationship between the couple after marriage. They pointed out the absence of a suicide note or dowry demand as evidence supporting their case. On the other hand, the State’s counsel argued that the allegations were grave, underscoring Panina’s mental distress resulting from the applicant’s extramarital affair, substantiated by witness testimonies.

The Court carefully considered both arguments, evaluating the available evidence. Notably, specific allegations against the applicant, including his extramarital affair and the mental and physical torture of Panina, were found to be credible. These allegations were supported by Panina’s mother’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The Court acknowledged the severe emotional trauma that discovering infidelity shortly after marriage can inflict on an individual. In this case, it was alleged that Panina’s suicide was a direct consequence of her husband’s actions. The absence of dowry demands was a significant factor in the analysis.

Held

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that there were no grounds for granting bail at this stage. The emotional trauma experienced by Panina due to her husband’s alleged infidelity and subsequent ill-treatment was considered a critical factor. Given these circumstances, the bail application was dismissed.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the seriousness with which cases involving cruelty towards married women and abetment of suicide are treated, especially when specific allegations, such as extramarital affairs and mental torture, are involved. The court’s focus on the emotional well-being of the victim and the profound impact of such revelations underscores the need for responsible and compassionate handling of such cases.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

17 Aug

Allahabad HC Denies Bail To 19 Y/O ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba Associate’ Accused Of Promoting Arms Acquisition Through WhatsApp

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, bail

CASE TITLE: Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 7241 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 09.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

INTRODUCTION

Last week, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant bail to a 19-year-old individual who was reportedly linked to the ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba’ group. The person had been apprehended by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of the Uttar Pradesh Police the previous year on charges of disseminating animosity, advocating sentiments against India, and assisting in the procurement of weapons through WhatsApp groups.

In light of the accusations directed at the individual named Inamul Haq, also known as Inamul Imtiyaz, Justice Pankaj Bhatia’s panel noted that even though the freedom to practice and promote religion is safeguarded by Article 19, the nature of the allegations outlined in the First Information Report (FIR) indicates that the accused cannot be considered exempt from the provisions of the second part of Section 121-A IPC.

FACTS

Reportedly, the First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the accused under Sections 121-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66 of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The accusations revolved around his alleged creation of a WhatsApp group where he shared literature with potential jihadi connotations and uploaded videos of a similar nature.

The FIR also detailed that the individual in question confessed to aspiring to become a jihadi and acknowledged his affiliation with the Lashkar group. According to the FIR, he claimed to have maintained a WhatsApp group for approximately 15-16 years, comprising 181 members, including 170 from Pakistan, 3 from Afghanistan, and 1 each from Malaysia, Bangladesh, and India. Furthermore, he was accused of actively promoting arms acquisition and propagating the group’s ideology based on religious biases.

In his bid for bail, the accused approached the High Court, with his representative (Advocate Shivam Yadav) contending that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie establish his involvement under Section 121-A IPC. It was argued that he had been in custody since March 14, 2022, and the offenses attributed to him were punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Conversely, the state’s legal representative opposed his bail application, citing the allegations detailed in the FIR.

Against this context, the Court initially examined Section 121A IPC (Conspiracy to commit offenses punishable by section 121). The Court additionally observed that the accusations against the accused and the contents of the FIR indicated that he managed two WhatsApp groups primarily composed of foreign nationals. These groups were allegedly involved in promoting arms procurement and advancing the group’s agenda based on religious biases.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Given these charges leveled against the defendant, the Court determined that the accused cannot be deemed to have violated the second portion of Section 121-A IPC. As a result, due to the seriousness of the accusation, the Court concluded that there was no basis for approving bail, leading to the dismissal of the defendant’s bail plea.

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8