IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Shalinder Kaur
Sharjeel Imam – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
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 BEHALF OF THE STATE |
| ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS |
1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed by the Appellants under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the respective Orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-03), Shahdara District, Karkadooma Courts, (Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the'Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the Bail Appli






Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement
Padam Singhee v. Directorate of Enforcement
V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India
Sidhique Kappan v. State of U.P.
NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Another
Shaheen Welfare Assn.v.Union of India
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
Union of India v. Rattan Mallik
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act)
Kehar Singh & Others v. State (Delhi Administration)
Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala
Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar
State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra
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.
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.