Umar Khalid vs State of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Umar Khalid – Appellant
Versus
State of National Capital Territory of Delhi – Respondent

Table of Content
1. the basis of appeal is set on denying bail. (Para 1 , 3)
2. riots were planned and executed causing extensive damage and loss. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. details of the investigation and charges against the appellant. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. arguments presented by the appellant's counsel challenging the prosecution's claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. allegations of a broader conspiracy connected to protests leading to riots. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
6. court outlines factors to consider for bail under uapa. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
7. unearthing prima facie basis for accusations based on collected evidence. (Para 45 , 46)
8. conclusions drawn from collective evidence indicating the appellant's involvement. (Para 62 , 63)

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 r/w Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Amitabh Rawat, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Karkardooma District court (Shahdara district), Delhi, whereby the Appellant's Application for grant of Regular Bail wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGARUmar Khalid – AppellantVersusState of National Capital Territory of Delhi – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Umar Khalid – Appellant
Versus
State of National Capital Territory of Delhi – Respondent