Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Tasleem Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant herein challenging the Order dated 25.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 59/2020 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, whereby the third bail application filed by the Appellant was rejected.
2. Briefly stated, the facts germane to the present case are as follows –
a. The instant case emerges from the incidents which occurred in North-East Delhi during 23.02.2020 to 25.02.2020, where protests at a large scale were organised against the promulgation of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the amendments made to the policy of National Registry of Citizens.
b. As per the case of the prosecution, various incidents of rioting and violence were conducted in the name of protests, thereby creating ruckus in the society and damage to the public property.
c. In this backdrop, FIRs were registered against the accused persons. Pertinently, the Appellant was initially apprehended on 08.04.2020 for his participation in the alleged riots in FIR No. 48/2020 and was also granted regular b
Bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be granted solely due to trial delay; it requires examination of prima facie case merits.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
(1) Grant of bail – Courts are expected to appreciate legislative policy against grant of bail but rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed with....
The judgment establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail even under stringent laws.
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail under Article 21, emphasizing individual liberty rights even amidst stringent statutory limits.
The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without significant evidence warrants bail under Article 21, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial. Serious allegations alone do not justify denial....
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
