Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News