In Umar Khalid’s case, Ex-CJI Chandrachud highlighted that there were multiple adjournments sought by his counsel, at least seven or more, and finally the bail application was withdrawn, a fact often overlooked in debates.
Former Delhi Congress councillor and lawyer Ishrat Jahan, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots UAPA case, granted revised bail terms allowing her to travel anywhere in India with prior court permission. The court acknowledged her professional obligations and found no evidence of bail condition breaches. The Delhi Police’s appeal against her bail decision is pending before the Delhi High Court.
Today, 10th April, The ongoing legal proceedings regarding Umar Khalid’s bail hearings in Delhi highlight the influence of social media narratives on judicial processes. The Delhi Police’s statement in court revealed Khalid’s alleged manipulation of online content to sway bail decisions. Legal arguments also addressed the prosecution’s reliance on evidence and the evolving interpretation of prima facie evidence in similar cases.
The Delhi Court denied Tahir Hussain’s bail request, citing substantial grounds under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court found prima facie evidence of his involvement in funding and orchestrating the 2020 Delhi riots. Witness statements and financial evidence supported the decision, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations. The ruling underscores the strict scrutiny of UAPA cases.
New Delhi, Feb 22 Delhi Court has once again denied bail to Tasleem Ahmed, who is implicated in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). This decision underscores the complexities of legal proceedings in cases involving allegations of a larger conspiracy. Also Read- Delhi Court Grants Bail To […]
On 17 Feb 2024, Delhi’s Karkardooma Courts rejected bail for Sharjeel Imam, a prominent figure in the Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Despite serving four years, the court refused his plea due to the cumulative nature of his charges, marking a pivotal moment in legal interpretation and setting a precedent for similar cases. This decision fuels the ongoing debate on national security versus individual rights.