LawFinder.news
LawFinder.news

Delhi court grants bail to man accused of rioting, assaulting five people with knife

LAW FINDER NEWS NETWORK | |

New Delhi, Nov 5 A Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of being part of an unlawful assembly that allegedly attacked five people with a knife and a broken beer bottle during a rioting incident in the national capital.


Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal was hearing a bail plea filed by Mohammad Rustam, who has been in custody since October 22, 2025, and said the trial was likely to take considerable time as none of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.


In the November 3 order, the court said, “The applicant/accused is in custody since October 22, 2025. Though the charges have been framed in the instant case, none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined till yet. Therefore, it is clear that the conclusion of the trial may take a long time.”


The court noted that although charges had been framed in the case, the examination of witnesses was yet to begin.


Rustam is facing trial under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to rioting, attempt to commit culpable homicide, voluntarily causing hurt and offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.


According to the prosecution, Rustam, along with four co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, including a knife and a broken beer bottle.


They allegedly attacked complainant Shahrukh and victim Dilshad alias Janu with the weapons. Three other victims, identified as Azara, Shaheen and Neha, were also allegedly assaulted and suffered minor injuries.


Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations against Rustam were grave. The defence, however, claimed that he had been falsely implicated and pointed out that three co-accused had already been granted bail.


It also submitted that the chargesheet had been filed and there was no purpose in keeping Rustam in custody any longer.


The court granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the like amount.


The court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.

Share this article: