MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Nature and Gravity of the Offense Considered, Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies and Non-specific Role Lead to Bail Grant: Delhi High Court In Delhi Riot Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Shoaib Alam, also known as Bobby, implicated in the violent Delhi riots of February 2020. The decision was influenced by notable inconsistencies in witness statements and the lack of specific evidence pinpointing Alam’s involvement in murder and rioting.

Legal Point of the Judgment: Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court emphasized the court’s role in bail considerations, particularly focusing on the nature and gravity of the offense, the character of evidence, and discrepancies in the identification and role ascribed to the accused. The court noted that at the bail stage, deep diving into the credibility of evidence is not warranted, a point underscored by several Supreme Court precedents.

Facts and Issues in the Case: Alam was accused under multiple sections of the IPC related to kidnapping, murder, rioting, and arson following the Delhi riots. Eyewitnesses and police testimonies formed the crux of the prosecution’s case, claiming Alam’s presence in the mob that committed these crimes. However, contradictions in witness accounts regarding his specific actions and the role in the violence were key issues impacting the bail decision.

Detailed Court Assessment: Witness Testimonies and Evidence Reliability: The court highlighted the contradictions in key testimonies. Witnesses failed to confirm Alam’s direct role in violent acts, and no direct identification was evident, casting doubts on the quality of evidence against him.

Legal Standards for Bail: Justice Chawla reiterated the legal framework for bail, pointing out that the seriousness of the offense and societal implications weigh heavily. However, the court also considered the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice and the potential influence on witnesses and the community.

Analysis of Accusations: The assessment included an analysis of collective liability under Section 149 IPC, the applicability of which was questioned due to the unclear role of Alam in the alleged crimes.

Decision of the Judgment: Alam was granted bail considering the cumulative discrepancies noted during witness identification, the non-specific role provided in testimonies, and his substantial period already spent in custody. Conditions included surety, regular court appearances, and non-interaction with witnesses or co-accused.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

Shoaib Alam @ Bobby versus State (NCT of Delhi)

Latest Legal News