Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Shalinder Kaur
Sharjeel Imam – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges under ua(p) act must detail relevant offenses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. riots were premeditated and connected to larger conspiracy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. bail applications require careful balancing of rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. discretion in bail under special statutes like ua(p) act. (Para 30 , 34 , 36) |
| 5. appeals dismissed; further proceedings required. (Para 84 , 150 , 294) |
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
INDEX
| Section |
|---|
| DELAY AND LONG PERIOD OF INCARCERATION |
| BAR UNDER SECTION 43D OF THE UA(P) ACT |
| CONSPIRACY - THE LEGAL POSITION |
| RIGHT TO PROTEST VIS-À-VIS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION |
| CRL.A. 184/2022 AND CRL.A. 631/2024: SHARJEEL IMAM AND UMAR KHALID |
| SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE |
| ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION |
| CRL.A. 677/2022, 600/2022, 210/2022 AND 233/2022: ATHAR KHAN, SHADAB AHMED, ABDUL KHALID SAIFI AND MOHD. SALEEM KHAN |
| SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE |
| ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS |
| CRL. A. 271/2022 AND 1149/2024: SHIFA-UR- REHMAN AND MEERAN HAIDER |
| SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE |
| ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS |
| CRL.A. 211/2022: GULFISHA FATIMA |
| SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT |
| SUBMISSIONS ON BEH |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
