Libertatem Magazine

Delhi High Court: Ld. ASJ Has Failed to Appreciate That When Deciding an Application of Bail the Interest of the Society Is Also to Be Safeguarded

Contents of this Page

The petition was filed before Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, in Delhi High Court under Section 482 and 439(2) of Cr.P.C for setting aside the bail granted by Ld. ASJ dated 05/03/2020.


The respondent, Faizal Farooq, is an educationist. He owns various schools like Rajdhani Public School in Delhi. He has been running the said schools for 18 years. In these 18 years, there was no complaint filed against him.

On 24/02/2020 riots happened in Delhi between Hindus and Muslims. In this case, the respondent is charged for helping the rioters in entering the applicant school. He was arrested. Then on 22/06/2020, he was released on bail. But on that day police authority implicated him in another FIR and arrested him.

Arguments on behalf of Respondent

Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent made the following submissions.

The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the request of police remand. Police recorded in  Chargesheet that the respondent was present at the  Crime Branch for investigation at the time when police called him. He said in Sessions Court, recorded on the date of the offence that the respondent called police authority 6 times for help.

He said according to some special cases granted bail can be cancelled. Counsel on behalf of respondent pointed Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana case. In this case, SC held that for cancelling the bail very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary.

He said in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Supreme Court held that “When under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.Then he went on Chargesheet. He stated that in the Chargesheet Roop Singh stated the name of few people who were seen during riots, but Respondent was not there.

Other witnesses identified other rioters through images but nobody identified the respondent if he was there. Further, it was submitted that the respondent left the school premises before the riot began.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

Ld. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the respondent was present till 1:45 pm on 24/02/2020 and left before the time of the riot. He said the PW Roop Singh stated that there were many people assembled outside the school, and at that time the respondent told his guard to let them enter. It shows that it is pre-planned and the respondent was involved in it.

They stated that the investigating team found a huge quantity of stone, petrol bomb, etc. already stored on the terrace of Rajdhani Public School and rioters used the rope to enter into DRP School from Rajdhani Public School.

He also states that during the investigation rioters fired bullets from the terrace of Rajdhani School. And cleared that the bail of the respondent affects the investigation of this case and also other related cases. Thereafter he pointed out CDR analysis and established the relationship between respondent and other rioter groups. 

Court’s Observation

The rioter entered the premises of Rajdhani Public school from the main gate. They continued throwing stones, petrol bombs, etc. for two days. They entered into DRP School from the terrace of the Rajdhani School by using the rope. DVRs are disabled around 6 pm and as the respondent is the owner of the school the DVRs are disabled by his order.

All the things used in the riots were pre-installed on rooftops of the Rajdhani School. All these facts suggest that the respondent was involved in this organized offense. The Court is of the view that the bail granted to the respondent is at the pre-mature stage while ignoring the relevant material on record.

Court’s Order

The Court passed the order on 02/11/2020. The Court granted a stay on the bail order of the respondent and stated that there is no need for further direction of surrender to be passed. Court also said to the trial court to not get influenced during the trial by an observation made by this Court.

Click here to see full judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author