High Court Grants Bail to Two Individuals, While One Faces Denial in Rahul Solanki Murder Case Related to Delhi Riots

Case: ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters

Coram: Justice Amit Bansal

Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 958/2022

Court Observation: “In my considered view, merely because the applicants were part of an assembly, it cannot be assumed that the common object of the assembly was to commit a murder or that the applicants knew that a murder was likely to be committed,”

“Both the applicants have been in judicial custody since 9th March, 2020. The Chargesheet against the applicants was filed on 2nd June 2020. Thereafter, various Supplementary Chargesheets have been filed. Charges have been framed against the applicants. Till now the prosecution evidence is yet to commence. The prosecution has listed several witnesses and therefore the trial is likely to take a long while.”

“I am in agreement with the submission of the learned SPP that the applicant cannot be granted bail only on account of long incarceration, as the applicant has been charged with offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life,”

Previous Posts

The Delhi High Court asserts that the accuracy of information provided cannot be determined in proceedings under the RTI Act

If the accused simply avoids being found for a long time, it doesn’t automatically mean they are guilty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court states that the prosecution should not be presumed guilty just because they choose not to present certain witnesses

IBC: If a case is heard on a specific date but the order is delivered later, the Supreme Court directs that the NCLT should not include the date of the hearing on the order

Lawyers must check case facts independently, even though they draft legal documents and argue based on client instructions: Supreme Court

Keywords

High Court Grants Bail,