Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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)

Similar News