Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Tanveer Malik – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for bail by petitioner with prior histories. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the evidence supporting petitioner's guilt. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. prosecution's case establishment through witness statements. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. comparison of cases and application of bail principles. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's decision on granting bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. conclusion of the order and compliance directions. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is accused in FIR No. 91/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi for allegedly committing offences under Sections 147 /148/149/153A/505/436/307/120B/34 IPC and Sections 27 /30 ARMS ACT . He is in judicial custody since 12.03.2020 in this case and by this petition, he is seeking bail while claiming to be innocent and of having been falsely implicated in this case.
2. The FIR in question is fulcrum of riots which broke out in North East Delhi on 25.02.2020. Pertinently, two more FIRs i.e. FIR No. 88/2020 and FIR No. 92/2020, both registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi pertaining to the incident of riots on 25.02.2020 are also pending to the credit of petitioner. However, vide order dated 04.02.
The court determined that the completion of investigation in a riot-related case allows for reconsideration of bail, even after previous denials, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence against....
Unlawful assembly - Grant of bail - No independent eye-witness identification of applicant.
Grant of Bail - Offence of Rioting and Murder - There is no direct evidence like CCTV footage etc. coupled with fact that co-accused of petitioner have been granted bail in this FIR case, court view ....
Bail can be granted based on absence of direct evidence and parity with co-accused who have been released, emphasizing presumption of innocence.
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail in each of the 5 FIRs. The Court considered factors such as the bailable nature of the offenses, the period of incarceration exceeding the maxi....
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when evidence is insufficient or witnesses' reliability is questionable, especially in serious cases involving substantial allegations.
The main legal point established is that bail can be granted based on the lack of substantial evidence and the unreliability of key witnesses, even in cases involving serious charges.
Bail applications for serious offenses can be denied to prevent witness tampering, balancing individual liberty against public safety.
The court held that serious charges coupled with substantial evidence against the accused justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the potential risk to an ongoing investigation.
The court held that the identification of the petitioner as part of the mob was questionable, and considering the lengthy pre-trial detention and mental health condition, bail was granted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
