Tanveer Malik vs State on 26 April, 2021

2. The FIR in question is fulcrum of riots which broke out in North East

Delhi on 25.02.2020. Pertinently, two more FIRs i.e. FIR No. 88/2020 and

FIR No. 92/2020, both registered at police station Dayalpur, Delhi
BAIL APPLN. 1002/2021 Page 1 of 9
pertaining to the incident of riots on 25.02.2020 are also pending to the

credit of petitioner. However, vide order dated 04.02.2021 petitioner has

been granted bail in FIR No. 92/2020 [in Bail Appln. 3864/2021] by this

Court, whereas in FIR No. 88/2020, he has been granted bail by the Court of

Sessions vide order dated 30.05.2020.

3. In the present FIR, petitioner had earlier approached this Court for

bail and the same was dismissed by passing a detailed order on 24.09.2020

[Bail Appln. 2664/2020]. Petitioner’s second bail application [Bail Appln.

3570/2020] was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020.

Thereafter, his third bail application [Bail Appln. 652/2021] was not pressed

by him while seeking liberty to approach the learned trial court for the relief

claimed. However, his bail application has been dismissed by the learned

trial court vide order dated 12.03.2021 [in SC No.70/2021] rejecting his

claim of parity in FIR No. 92/2020, registered at police station Dayalpur,

Delhi wherein he has been granted bail by this Court, while holding “that

there is no independent eye witness identification of applicant in case in FIR

No. 92/2020, whereas in the present case, besides being identified by

injured Ajay, he has also been categorically identified by public witnesses

PW Harish Chander and PW Prashant Kumar.” The learned trial court has

BAIL APPLN. 1002/2021 Page 2 of 9
further held as under:-

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply