Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Denial of Bail in Delhi Riots Case: Material Evidence Indicates Involvement – Justice Amit Bansal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of Mohd. Mustaqeem, connected with the February 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in the tragic death of an innocent bystander, Rahul Solanki. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, emphasized the significant material evidence against the petitioner, leading to the denial of bail.

The case, registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder), has been a subject of extensive investigation since the riots. The petitioner, Mohd. Mustaqeem, was identified as a key suspect in the incident.

Justice Bansal’s decision was heavily influenced by the testimonies and evidence presented. He noted, “On a prima facie view, there is material on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences.” This statement highlights the court’s stance on the gravity of the evidence against Mustaqeem.

The eyewitness identification played a crucial role in this judgment. Anil Kumar, cousin of the deceased, identified the petitioner as the assailant. Kumar’s statements, supported by a video clip and subsequent identification procedures, were pivotal in linking Mustaqeem to the crime.

The court also addressed the petitioner’s refusal to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade (TIP), underscoring a potential compromise in the authenticity of the identification process. However, this did not detract from the overall evidence presented against the petitioner.

The judgment also reflects on the complexities of bail grants in cases involving severe charges such as life imprisonment or death. Justice Bansal’s observation, “Long incarceration alone not sufficient for bail, especially in cases with charges punishable by death or life imprisonment,” sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Decision: 18 December, 2023

MOHD. MUSTAQEEM VS STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI

 

Similar News