PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Mohd. Tahir Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with FIR No. 65 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 registered at Police Station Dayalpur, District North East, Delhi in connection with rioting and murder of one Ankit Sharma, an official of the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Apart from the aforesaid case, several other cases relating to riots in Delhi which took place in the month of February, 2020 and one under PMLA are pending consideration and the petitioner is allegedly involved in all of them.
3. The petitioner so far has not been successful in getting bail in the above case and some other cases, so he applied to the High Court for grant of interim bail from 14.01.2025 to 09.02.2025 simply to participate and contest Delhi Assembly Election, 2025 from Mustafabad Constituency, Delhi. It may be remembered that the petitioner was earlier a councilor from the ticket of the Aam Aadmi Party. However, subsequently he left the said party and was given ticket to contes
Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Advocate Supreme Court vs. Union of India and Others
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab
Niranjan Singh vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote
Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465 [Para 6
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
Frank Vitus vs. Narcotics Control Bureau
Sreenivasa General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Amar Nath Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab
Interim bail for campaigning in elections is not permissible as it is not a fundamental right and could lead to misuse of the legal process.
The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, allowing restrictions based on criminal background to protect electoral integrity.
The court emphasized the necessity of interim protection for the accused in election-related cases while ensuring victim protection and public safety during the electoral process.
Grant of interim bail/release – While examining question of grant of interim bail/release, courts always take into consideration peculiarities associated with person in question and surrounding circu....
Bail – While deciding a bail application, Court should not embark upon a detailed enquiry with regard to merits of matter – Bail is a right of any accused and jail is an exception.
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge an order of rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer/competent authority having regard to the provisions in Article 243-O of the Constit....
The right to know a candidate's criminal background is essential for informed voting, and courts can intervene to enforce this right, especially when candidates evade legal processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.