Skip to main content
Sabrang

Rule of Law

Sabrang

Do not file FIR on “third party” complaint under SC/ST Act, without approval: Punjab & Haryana HC

The court issued a direction to the Punjab DGP to instruct all districts that approval of District Attorney should be sought before filing such complaints on the instance of third parties

20 Oct 2021

punjab and haryana hc

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab Director General of Police (DGP), to issue directions that any complaint filed by “third party” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be lodged only after the District Attorney’s approval. 

The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan passed the order granting pre-arrest bail to the two petitioners who were accused of uttering abuses against the community of the woman whom their son was intending to marry. The complaint was filed by some social activists after the audio recording of the incident was put up on social media by the son. Interestingly, the SC/ST Act does not allow granting of pre-arrest bail under SC/ST Act. Also, there is no bar under the Act for any “third party” or informant to file a case for an offence under the Act.

Background

The petition was filed seeking anticipatory bail for FIR filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by two petitioners who are husband and wife.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the husband and wife are aged 67 and 58 years respectively, and are senior citizens. Their dispute is with their son who wanted to marry a woman belonging to SC/ST community. During a discussion they were having, the petitioners allegedly spoke derogatory words against the woman’s community. The petitioners disowned their son after he married the woman by putting a notice in the newspapers as he was allegedly mistreating them. One day they received a call from Rama Mandi police station, Jalandhar where the ASI put pressure on the petitioners to transfer property in the name of their son or else they will be falsely implicated in a case.

An FIR was finally lodged by social activists after they came across audio clips uploaded by the son, Prince Randhawa on social media, whereby the petitioners allegedly used abusive language against the girl’s community.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the complainants are not victims under the SC/ST Act as defined under section 2(1)(ec). He argued that the complainants are not related to the girl and the audio clip was a private conversation and therefore no case is made out and that the FIR is being used to oust the petitioners from their house.

The counsel for the state submitted that a perusal of the audio clip shows that the petitioners have used some derogatory language against the girl in the name of her caste.

The court observed that since the woman, who is the victim, has not lodged any complaint means that she is hopeful of getting the things resolved in future and since the complainants have no locus standi, the petition was allowed. The court thus granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The court further observed that the activists who filed the complaint have misused the SC/ST Act and thus, directed DGP, Punjab to issue instructions to all Senior Superintendents of Police in Districts that no FIR under SC/ST Act be registered at the instance of a third party unless an opinion is sought from the District Attorney (Legal) that the complainant falls within the definition of victim under SC/ST Act.

The complete order may be read here:

Is the direction justified?

The court, in conclusion, directed that a third party should not be allowed to lodge an FIR under SC/ST Act unless approval of District Attorney (Legal) is sought. While this direction has been passed, is it valid and in vires with the provisions of the SC/ST Act?

For starters, the court also commented on the activists not having locus standi in this case as they are not related to the victim. However, there is no provision under the Act that the complaint has to be filed by the victim or a relative of the victim. The Act, in fact, makes provisions for filing of complaint by an “informant” who can be anyone. Indian criminal justice system allows filing of FIR of an incident by anyone who has information of the offence and not just the affected or interested party as the case may be.

Further, by an amendment in 2018, the government inserted section 18A in the Act which states that no preliminary enquiry is required before registration of FIR and neither is any approval required before lodging the case.

Also, section 15A(12) allows the victims of offences under SC/ST Act to seek help of or receive help of NGOs or activists. The section states:

15A(12) It shall be the right of the atrocity victims or their dependents, to take assistance from the Non-Government Organisations, social workers or advocates.”

Under sub-section 2 of section 18A, it states that “the provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court." Section 438 pertains to pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences. This means that any person accused of offences under the SC/ST Act cannot take advantage of applying for pre-arrest bail, whatever the case may be.

Thus, neither was the court, under SC/ST Act authorised to grant pre-arrest bail nor is its direction to seek approval before a non-victim lodges a case, valid. Both directions given by the court are evidently bad in law and in contravention to the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Related:

Punjab: Newly-weds, hacked to death, allegedly by woman’s family

Kundli murder: NCSC Chief writes to Punjab DGP over villagers denying last rites to Dalit victim

Hate Watch: Teacher flogs Class 12 Dalit boy in class, video goes viral

Do not file FIR on “third party” complaint under SC/ST Act, without approval: Punjab & Haryana HC

The court issued a direction to the Punjab DGP to instruct all districts that approval of District Attorney should be sought before filing such complaints on the instance of third parties

punjab and haryana hc

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab Director General of Police (DGP), to issue directions that any complaint filed by “third party” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be lodged only after the District Attorney’s approval. 

The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan passed the order granting pre-arrest bail to the two petitioners who were accused of uttering abuses against the community of the woman whom their son was intending to marry. The complaint was filed by some social activists after the audio recording of the incident was put up on social media by the son. Interestingly, the SC/ST Act does not allow granting of pre-arrest bail under SC/ST Act. Also, there is no bar under the Act for any “third party” or informant to file a case for an offence under the Act.

Background

The petition was filed seeking anticipatory bail for FIR filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act by two petitioners who are husband and wife.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the husband and wife are aged 67 and 58 years respectively, and are senior citizens. Their dispute is with their son who wanted to marry a woman belonging to SC/ST community. During a discussion they were having, the petitioners allegedly spoke derogatory words against the woman’s community. The petitioners disowned their son after he married the woman by putting a notice in the newspapers as he was allegedly mistreating them. One day they received a call from Rama Mandi police station, Jalandhar where the ASI put pressure on the petitioners to transfer property in the name of their son or else they will be falsely implicated in a case.

An FIR was finally lodged by social activists after they came across audio clips uploaded by the son, Prince Randhawa on social media, whereby the petitioners allegedly used abusive language against the girl’s community.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the complainants are not victims under the SC/ST Act as defined under section 2(1)(ec). He argued that the complainants are not related to the girl and the audio clip was a private conversation and therefore no case is made out and that the FIR is being used to oust the petitioners from their house.

The counsel for the state submitted that a perusal of the audio clip shows that the petitioners have used some derogatory language against the girl in the name of her caste.

The court observed that since the woman, who is the victim, has not lodged any complaint means that she is hopeful of getting the things resolved in future and since the complainants have no locus standi, the petition was allowed. The court thus granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The court further observed that the activists who filed the complaint have misused the SC/ST Act and thus, directed DGP, Punjab to issue instructions to all Senior Superintendents of Police in Districts that no FIR under SC/ST Act be registered at the instance of a third party unless an opinion is sought from the District Attorney (Legal) that the complainant falls within the definition of victim under SC/ST Act.

The complete order may be read here:

Is the direction justified?

The court, in conclusion, directed that a third party should not be allowed to lodge an FIR under SC/ST Act unless approval of District Attorney (Legal) is sought. While this direction has been passed, is it valid and in vires with the provisions of the SC/ST Act?

For starters, the court also commented on the activists not having locus standi in this case as they are not related to the victim. However, there is no provision under the Act that the complaint has to be filed by the victim or a relative of the victim. The Act, in fact, makes provisions for filing of complaint by an “informant” who can be anyone. Indian criminal justice system allows filing of FIR of an incident by anyone who has information of the offence and not just the affected or interested party as the case may be.

Further, by an amendment in 2018, the government inserted section 18A in the Act which states that no preliminary enquiry is required before registration of FIR and neither is any approval required before lodging the case.

Also, section 15A(12) allows the victims of offences under SC/ST Act to seek help of or receive help of NGOs or activists. The section states:

15A(12) It shall be the right of the atrocity victims or their dependents, to take assistance from the Non-Government Organisations, social workers or advocates.”

Under sub-section 2 of section 18A, it states that “the provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court." Section 438 pertains to pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences. This means that any person accused of offences under the SC/ST Act cannot take advantage of applying for pre-arrest bail, whatever the case may be.

Thus, neither was the court, under SC/ST Act authorised to grant pre-arrest bail nor is its direction to seek approval before a non-victim lodges a case, valid. Both directions given by the court are evidently bad in law and in contravention to the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Related:

Punjab: Newly-weds, hacked to death, allegedly by woman’s family

Kundli murder: NCSC Chief writes to Punjab DGP over villagers denying last rites to Dalit victim

Hate Watch: Teacher flogs Class 12 Dalit boy in class, video goes viral

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Delhi Violence: Sessions Court stays Magistrate’s order imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on Delhi Police

The Magistrate had observed that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials

19 Oct 2021

StaysRepresentative Image

The Principal District and Sessions Judge has stayed the operation of the Magistrate’s order which had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Delhi Police after observing that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint caused undue harassment to the accused persons who are currently detained.

Judge Ramesh Kumar said, “In view of the submissions of Spl. PP and facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the impugned order, dated 12.10.2021, is stayed till the next date of hearing.”

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg’s order was challenged through a revision petition filed by SHO Police Station Bhajanpura.

As we had reported previously in SabrangIndia, on October 12, the CMM had pulled up the Delhi Police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

CMM Garg also noted that no case diary was written in the matter after September 10, and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan will be filed within a period of 3 days. To this, he said, “In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case.”

Time and again, the courts have pulled up the Delhi Police for their investigation in the north-east Delhi violence case. Recently, Additional Sessions Judge, Vinod Yadav, who was adjudicating on some of the violence cases was transferred to another court. He is known to have slammed the police for their shoddy investigation on various occasions. 

In one of the last orders passed by him, he had reprimanded Delhi Police for the “sorry state affairs” as it had not begun investigation in the riots case in which it was alleged that certain accused gave a call to violence over loudspeakers, to attack people from the other community.

CMM Arun Garg has also slammed the Police’s technique of investigating the cases pertaining to the February violence of last year. On September 6, he had directed the Delhi Commissioner of Police to take action to ensure proper investigation. On September 1 as well, the court had pulled up the Delhi Police for its conduct of filing supplementary chargesheets and failing to ensure conclusion of investigation due to which the court was unable to go ahead with trial.

“Last and final opportunity is accordingly given to the State to do the needful in the matter for filing of supplementary chargesheet positively within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Court shall proceed further with the matter without giving any further opportunity to the State in this regard particularly in view of the fact that the accused is running in J/C for over a period of almost one year,” the court had said. (State v. Dinesh Yadav @Michael CR Case No. 1274/2020)

The District and Sessions Judge’s order may be read here: 

Related:

Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused
Delhi violence: HC transfers Judge who criticised Delhi Police's investigation
Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’

Delhi Violence: Sessions Court stays Magistrate’s order imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on Delhi Police

The Magistrate had observed that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials

StaysRepresentative Image

The Principal District and Sessions Judge has stayed the operation of the Magistrate’s order which had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Delhi Police after observing that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint caused undue harassment to the accused persons who are currently detained.

Judge Ramesh Kumar said, “In view of the submissions of Spl. PP and facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the impugned order, dated 12.10.2021, is stayed till the next date of hearing.”

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg’s order was challenged through a revision petition filed by SHO Police Station Bhajanpura.

As we had reported previously in SabrangIndia, on October 12, the CMM had pulled up the Delhi Police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

CMM Garg also noted that no case diary was written in the matter after September 10, and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan will be filed within a period of 3 days. To this, he said, “In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case.”

Time and again, the courts have pulled up the Delhi Police for their investigation in the north-east Delhi violence case. Recently, Additional Sessions Judge, Vinod Yadav, who was adjudicating on some of the violence cases was transferred to another court. He is known to have slammed the police for their shoddy investigation on various occasions. 

In one of the last orders passed by him, he had reprimanded Delhi Police for the “sorry state affairs” as it had not begun investigation in the riots case in which it was alleged that certain accused gave a call to violence over loudspeakers, to attack people from the other community.

CMM Arun Garg has also slammed the Police’s technique of investigating the cases pertaining to the February violence of last year. On September 6, he had directed the Delhi Commissioner of Police to take action to ensure proper investigation. On September 1 as well, the court had pulled up the Delhi Police for its conduct of filing supplementary chargesheets and failing to ensure conclusion of investigation due to which the court was unable to go ahead with trial.

“Last and final opportunity is accordingly given to the State to do the needful in the matter for filing of supplementary chargesheet positively within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Court shall proceed further with the matter without giving any further opportunity to the State in this regard particularly in view of the fact that the accused is running in J/C for over a period of almost one year,” the court had said. (State v. Dinesh Yadav @Michael CR Case No. 1274/2020)

The District and Sessions Judge’s order may be read here: 

Related:

Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused
Delhi violence: HC transfers Judge who criticised Delhi Police's investigation
Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Guj HC grants bail under “anti-love jihad law”, as couple reaches settlement

The couple were in a relationship before marriage and had even signed an affidavit that the marriage was without coercion

19 Oct 2021

gujarat hc

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to the husband and his relatives in a case lodged under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, as the wife filed a petition that a settlement has been reached and that it was a trivial matrimonial dispute. 

Justice Ilesh J Vora observed that since a settlement has been reached and the accused husband and informant wife were in a relationship with each other since before marriage, the accused may be granted interim relief of bail. The petition for quashing the FIR will be decided soon and the next hearing date is November 29.

The petitioner (wife) Divyaben and the accused (husband) Samir Qureshi were in a relationship since 2019, and in February 2019, signed an agreement that they have agreed to marry each other by following their respective religions. Then they got married in presence of family members as per Muslim Rites and rituals. They also declared their marriage on oath jointly by way of affidavit wherein they have categorically stated that the marriage was without any force or coercion and out of their free will and the marriage was registered with Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

Due to some trivial matter, the informant left her husband’s home and came to her parental home after which an FIR was lodged that the husband made forcible sexual intercourse, taking obscene photographs of the informant, causing forcible miscarriage and was compelled to forcibly convert her religion and used casteist slurs. Apart from the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law of the informant, and one other relative and kazi, were also arraigned as accused.

However, now the informant has approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR mainly on the ground that issues between husband and wife were petty and trivial matrimonial disputes which have been resolved.

The court took into consideration that the vires of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (amendment) had been challenged and that a Division bench has stayed the rigors of Section 3, 4, 4A to 4C, 5, 6 and 6A observing that the provisions shall not operate merely because of marriage is solemnised by a person of one religion with a person of another religion without force or by allurement or by fraudulent means, and such marriages cannot be termed as marriages for the purposes of unlawful conversion.

The court then took into consideration the settlement reach by the husband and wife and held that a case for interim relief of bail has been made out and thus granted bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with one surety of the like amount.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

CJP moves NCM over hate crimes against Muslims in Madhya Pradesh

Hate Watch: Street play on "Love Jihad" gets Sudharshan TV excited

Hate Watch: Vigilante groups misuse Navratri as an excuse to spread communal unrest

Guj HC grants bail under “anti-love jihad law”, as couple reaches settlement

The couple were in a relationship before marriage and had even signed an affidavit that the marriage was without coercion

gujarat hc

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to the husband and his relatives in a case lodged under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, as the wife filed a petition that a settlement has been reached and that it was a trivial matrimonial dispute. 

Justice Ilesh J Vora observed that since a settlement has been reached and the accused husband and informant wife were in a relationship with each other since before marriage, the accused may be granted interim relief of bail. The petition for quashing the FIR will be decided soon and the next hearing date is November 29.

The petitioner (wife) Divyaben and the accused (husband) Samir Qureshi were in a relationship since 2019, and in February 2019, signed an agreement that they have agreed to marry each other by following their respective religions. Then they got married in presence of family members as per Muslim Rites and rituals. They also declared their marriage on oath jointly by way of affidavit wherein they have categorically stated that the marriage was without any force or coercion and out of their free will and the marriage was registered with Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

Due to some trivial matter, the informant left her husband’s home and came to her parental home after which an FIR was lodged that the husband made forcible sexual intercourse, taking obscene photographs of the informant, causing forcible miscarriage and was compelled to forcibly convert her religion and used casteist slurs. Apart from the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law of the informant, and one other relative and kazi, were also arraigned as accused.

However, now the informant has approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR mainly on the ground that issues between husband and wife were petty and trivial matrimonial disputes which have been resolved.

The court took into consideration that the vires of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (amendment) had been challenged and that a Division bench has stayed the rigors of Section 3, 4, 4A to 4C, 5, 6 and 6A observing that the provisions shall not operate merely because of marriage is solemnised by a person of one religion with a person of another religion without force or by allurement or by fraudulent means, and such marriages cannot be termed as marriages for the purposes of unlawful conversion.

The court then took into consideration the settlement reach by the husband and wife and held that a case for interim relief of bail has been made out and thus granted bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with one surety of the like amount.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

CJP moves NCM over hate crimes against Muslims in Madhya Pradesh

Hate Watch: Street play on "Love Jihad" gets Sudharshan TV excited

Hate Watch: Vigilante groups misuse Navratri as an excuse to spread communal unrest

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused

The court observed that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint caused undue harassment to the accused who are in jail

18 Oct 2021

Delhi PoliceImage Courtesy:timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in Delhi has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Delhi Police to be paid to the accused persons in the north east Delhi violence case. CMM, Arun Kumar Garg observed that there was a delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint that caused “undue harassment” to the accused persons, two of whom are in judicial custody.

The Magistrate pulled up the police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

“It is significant to note that the observations were made by Ld. ASJ in the present case way back on 10.09.2021, however, till date no steps have been taken by the IO to seek permission of the court for further investigation and for segregation of the complaint Faizan Khan or for that matter of complainant Akil Ahmad. Repeated directions have already been issued by this court not only yo DCP (NE), Joint Commissioner of Police, (Eastern Range) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking personal intervention in the matters pertaining to the North East riots, however it appears that all the aforesaid directions have fallen on deaf ears…”, said the court.

The court perused the status report filed by the investigating officer wherein a prayer was made for granting permission and further time for investigation of the matter, and also to investigate the complaint of one Faizan Khan separately.

The Special Public Prosecutor, for the Police, submitted that further investigation in the matter was necessary in terms of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated September 10, 2021, wherein it was highlighted that the investigation qua complaint of the complainant namely Akil Ahmad pertaining to the incident could not have been clubbed with the present FIR.

CMM Garg also noted that no case diary was written in the matter after September 10, and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan will be filed within a period of 3 days. To this, he said, “In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case.”

Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed to be paid by the State to all 7 accused persons. Further, the court directed the Secretary (Home) Union of India to order an inquiry to fix the responsibility for imposition of the cost and deduction of the same from the salary of the responsible officer.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Delhi Violence: Court drops arson charges against 10
Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’
Delhi Violence: Court frames charges against 5 men for shooting a Muslim man dead, setting body on fire
Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court

Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused

The court observed that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint caused undue harassment to the accused who are in jail

Delhi PoliceImage Courtesy:timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in Delhi has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Delhi Police to be paid to the accused persons in the north east Delhi violence case. CMM, Arun Kumar Garg observed that there was a delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint that caused “undue harassment” to the accused persons, two of whom are in judicial custody.

The Magistrate pulled up the police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

“It is significant to note that the observations were made by Ld. ASJ in the present case way back on 10.09.2021, however, till date no steps have been taken by the IO to seek permission of the court for further investigation and for segregation of the complaint Faizan Khan or for that matter of complainant Akil Ahmad. Repeated directions have already been issued by this court not only yo DCP (NE), Joint Commissioner of Police, (Eastern Range) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking personal intervention in the matters pertaining to the North East riots, however it appears that all the aforesaid directions have fallen on deaf ears…”, said the court.

The court perused the status report filed by the investigating officer wherein a prayer was made for granting permission and further time for investigation of the matter, and also to investigate the complaint of one Faizan Khan separately.

The Special Public Prosecutor, for the Police, submitted that further investigation in the matter was necessary in terms of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated September 10, 2021, wherein it was highlighted that the investigation qua complaint of the complainant namely Akil Ahmad pertaining to the incident could not have been clubbed with the present FIR.

CMM Garg also noted that no case diary was written in the matter after September 10, and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan will be filed within a period of 3 days. To this, he said, “In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case.”

Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed to be paid by the State to all 7 accused persons. Further, the court directed the Secretary (Home) Union of India to order an inquiry to fix the responsibility for imposition of the cost and deduction of the same from the salary of the responsible officer.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Delhi Violence: Court drops arson charges against 10
Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’
Delhi Violence: Court frames charges against 5 men for shooting a Muslim man dead, setting body on fire
Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

UP: Lawyer shot dead inside court premises

The advocate, who has been identified as Bhupendra Singh was shot inside the district court complex in Shahjahanpur

18 Oct 2021

AdvocateImage Courtesy:india.com

An advocate was shot dead inside the district court complex in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district today, on October 18 at around 11:30 A.M. As per a LiveLaw report, the lawyer who has been identified as Bhupendra Singh, was reportedly speaking to someone else in court when he was shot by an unknown person. The reason behind this shooting is yet to be ascertained.

However, S. Anand, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, has said, “According to initial reports, it appears the man was alone. No other person was seen around him at the time of the incident. The forensic team is at work...Circumstances around killing are unclear.”

According to The Quint, police forces were deployed to control the situation following the firing that took place on the third floor of the court complex. Several lawyers on the site said that the incident was a huge lapse in security.

Just days ago, on September 24, three people including Gangster Jitender Gogi, who was being produced in court, were killed during an attack. According to news reports, Gogi was shot dead by members of a rival gang who had barged into the Rohini court. The attackers were then gunned down by the police officers in “immediate counterfire”. The assailants were “dressed as lawyers” and opened fire at him. It has been reported that a judge, lawyers and many others were also present in the courtroom when the gunshots were fired.

Eventually, the Delhi high court bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh took suo moto cognisance of this incident, calling it a “grave matter”. As per media reports, the bench impleaded the Commissioner of Delhi Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Union Law Ministry as parties.

Related:

Gunbattle in Delhi Court, 3 dead, many injured
Uttar Pradesh: Dalit school children thrashed, made to sit separately in Amethi

UP: Lawyer shot dead inside court premises

The advocate, who has been identified as Bhupendra Singh was shot inside the district court complex in Shahjahanpur

AdvocateImage Courtesy:india.com

An advocate was shot dead inside the district court complex in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district today, on October 18 at around 11:30 A.M. As per a LiveLaw report, the lawyer who has been identified as Bhupendra Singh, was reportedly speaking to someone else in court when he was shot by an unknown person. The reason behind this shooting is yet to be ascertained.

However, S. Anand, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, has said, “According to initial reports, it appears the man was alone. No other person was seen around him at the time of the incident. The forensic team is at work...Circumstances around killing are unclear.”

According to The Quint, police forces were deployed to control the situation following the firing that took place on the third floor of the court complex. Several lawyers on the site said that the incident was a huge lapse in security.

Just days ago, on September 24, three people including Gangster Jitender Gogi, who was being produced in court, were killed during an attack. According to news reports, Gogi was shot dead by members of a rival gang who had barged into the Rohini court. The attackers were then gunned down by the police officers in “immediate counterfire”. The assailants were “dressed as lawyers” and opened fire at him. It has been reported that a judge, lawyers and many others were also present in the courtroom when the gunshots were fired.

Eventually, the Delhi high court bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh took suo moto cognisance of this incident, calling it a “grave matter”. As per media reports, the bench impleaded the Commissioner of Delhi Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Union Law Ministry as parties.

Related:

Gunbattle in Delhi Court, 3 dead, many injured
Uttar Pradesh: Dalit school children thrashed, made to sit separately in Amethi

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Bombay court convicts man for sexual harassment in one of the shortest trials!

The case was registered on September 28 and the court delivered its verdict on October 5

18 Oct 2021

sexual harresment

Metropolitan Magistrate, Yashshree Marulkar convicted a person for offences of sexual harassment, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000.

The incident took place on September 18, 2021 in a park when the 56-year-old convict unzipped his trousers, exposed his genitals, and started walking towards the survivor. She ran towards the exit gate of the park but the perpetrator kept following her. Eventually, after asking for help from two people in the park, they restrained him, while she sought help from the police.

A police vehicle then arrived at the spot and took the perpetrator into custody and brought him to the police station along with the survivor. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against him and he has remained in custody since then.

After examining all witnesses on October 4, the Magistrate framed charges under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354 (A) (iv) (a man making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment) 354 (D) (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code against him.  

The Magistrate said, “In view of discussions in foregoing paras as well as the ingredients constituting the offences with which the accused is charged, in my opinion, the prosecution has established the fact that, the accused by moving around the victim and compelling her to sit on the other bench in the garden, and even after that flashing her by unzipping his trouser and chasing her shows that, he has used criminal force to her intending to outrage her modesty.”

The order further recorded, “Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion on the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim. It leaves behind a traumatic experience. The accused not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman, i.e., her dignity, honour, reputation…sexual offences are not only a crime against the person or a woman, it is a crime against the entire society.” 

During the trial, the Magistrate also lauded the efforts of the Police officials for the registration of an FIR right after the incident, showing extreme sensitivity towards such serious crimes. Although the police are legally and duty bound to register FIRs on a serious complaint, it is rarely done because of the mindset and disbelief towards the survivor’s testimony.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

391 complaints of sexual harassment at workplace received from Central Ministries: Government

CJP Impact: Twitter suspends 21 accounts threatening Muslim women with sexual violence

Madras HC takes cognisance of officer threatened for filing sexual harassment complaint

Bombay court convicts man for sexual harassment in one of the shortest trials!

The case was registered on September 28 and the court delivered its verdict on October 5

sexual harresment

Metropolitan Magistrate, Yashshree Marulkar convicted a person for offences of sexual harassment, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000.

The incident took place on September 18, 2021 in a park when the 56-year-old convict unzipped his trousers, exposed his genitals, and started walking towards the survivor. She ran towards the exit gate of the park but the perpetrator kept following her. Eventually, after asking for help from two people in the park, they restrained him, while she sought help from the police.

A police vehicle then arrived at the spot and took the perpetrator into custody and brought him to the police station along with the survivor. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against him and he has remained in custody since then.

After examining all witnesses on October 4, the Magistrate framed charges under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354 (A) (iv) (a man making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment) 354 (D) (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code against him.  

The Magistrate said, “In view of discussions in foregoing paras as well as the ingredients constituting the offences with which the accused is charged, in my opinion, the prosecution has established the fact that, the accused by moving around the victim and compelling her to sit on the other bench in the garden, and even after that flashing her by unzipping his trouser and chasing her shows that, he has used criminal force to her intending to outrage her modesty.”

The order further recorded, “Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion on the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim. It leaves behind a traumatic experience. The accused not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman, i.e., her dignity, honour, reputation…sexual offences are not only a crime against the person or a woman, it is a crime against the entire society.” 

During the trial, the Magistrate also lauded the efforts of the Police officials for the registration of an FIR right after the incident, showing extreme sensitivity towards such serious crimes. Although the police are legally and duty bound to register FIRs on a serious complaint, it is rarely done because of the mindset and disbelief towards the survivor’s testimony.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

391 complaints of sexual harassment at workplace received from Central Ministries: Government

CJP Impact: Twitter suspends 21 accounts threatening Muslim women with sexual violence

Madras HC takes cognisance of officer threatened for filing sexual harassment complaint

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Kundli murder accused remanded to week-long custody

Nihangs' justification of the murdering the man on account of religious sacrilege has angered many netizens and Dalit rights activists

16 Oct 2021

Sarabjit SinghImage Courtesy:opoyi.com

Kundli murder accused Sarabjit Singh was sent on remand for seven days after appearing before the court on October 16, 2021. The accused surrendered himself before authorities on Friday for the brutal crime of mutilating and murdering daily-wage worker Lakhbir Singh.

According to news reports, Sarabjit has to go through daily medical examination during his remand, while having access to his lawyer Munark Bhardwaj every day. Sarabjit has been accused of cutting off the hand of Lakhbir, torturing him until his last breath and then hanging his body to a police barricade behind the farmer protest site area. 

The Nihangs, a section within the Sikh community,, claimed that members had reacted in response to the victim’s attempt to insult their holy text Guru Granth Sahib on Friday. Sarabjit surrendered before the police when a delegation approached their camp.

According to locals, the group in question was prone to violent instances in the past as well. Farmers group Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) had also appealed to police to remove the group from the vicinity of their protest area but received no response.

Lakhbir was a Dalit labourer who was married with three daughters between 8-12 years of age. His death has been recorded in many viral videos recorded by the group wherein the man talks about being in pain. The news of his death for the crime of offending religious sentiments has offended many people who have started the hashtag “Justice for Lakhbir Singh.”

 

 

Owing to the location of the incident, many right-wing media had criticised the farmers’ movement, claiming that the murder occurred within the protest site. While the SKM has clarified that neither the Nihangs nor the victim have anything to do with the farmers struggle, some Dalit leaders have condemned the farmer leaders for “shying away from responsibility.”

National Commission for Scheduled Castes Chairman Vijay Sampla on October 15 shared the gruesome images of the body on Twitter with the caption, “The dead body of a Scheduled Caste youth was found hanging near the main stage of the SKM on the Singhu border. In this heinous case of Dalit oppression that reached the outskirts of Delhi after walking from the village chaupal, the SKM leaders, instead of shying away from their responsibility, should clarify their side.”

It may be noted that leaders on Friday said that “The SKM is against sacrilege of any religious text or symbol, but that does not give anyone the right to take the law in their own hands. We demand that the culprits be punished according to law after investigating the allegation of murder and conspiracy behind sacrilege.”

However, netizens like Ambedkarite artist Siddhesh Gautam said, "The incident should haunt every ‘peaceful protestor’ who didn’t do anything to stop it."

Related:

Kundli murder: Plea in SC seeking removal of farmers from protest site
Haryana: Mutilated body found at Kundli border
Kundli murder in no way related to the farmers’ struggle: Farmer leaders

Kundli murder accused remanded to week-long custody

Nihangs' justification of the murdering the man on account of religious sacrilege has angered many netizens and Dalit rights activists

Sarabjit SinghImage Courtesy:opoyi.com

Kundli murder accused Sarabjit Singh was sent on remand for seven days after appearing before the court on October 16, 2021. The accused surrendered himself before authorities on Friday for the brutal crime of mutilating and murdering daily-wage worker Lakhbir Singh.

According to news reports, Sarabjit has to go through daily medical examination during his remand, while having access to his lawyer Munark Bhardwaj every day. Sarabjit has been accused of cutting off the hand of Lakhbir, torturing him until his last breath and then hanging his body to a police barricade behind the farmer protest site area. 

The Nihangs, a section within the Sikh community,, claimed that members had reacted in response to the victim’s attempt to insult their holy text Guru Granth Sahib on Friday. Sarabjit surrendered before the police when a delegation approached their camp.

According to locals, the group in question was prone to violent instances in the past as well. Farmers group Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) had also appealed to police to remove the group from the vicinity of their protest area but received no response.

Lakhbir was a Dalit labourer who was married with three daughters between 8-12 years of age. His death has been recorded in many viral videos recorded by the group wherein the man talks about being in pain. The news of his death for the crime of offending religious sentiments has offended many people who have started the hashtag “Justice for Lakhbir Singh.”

 

 

Owing to the location of the incident, many right-wing media had criticised the farmers’ movement, claiming that the murder occurred within the protest site. While the SKM has clarified that neither the Nihangs nor the victim have anything to do with the farmers struggle, some Dalit leaders have condemned the farmer leaders for “shying away from responsibility.”

National Commission for Scheduled Castes Chairman Vijay Sampla on October 15 shared the gruesome images of the body on Twitter with the caption, “The dead body of a Scheduled Caste youth was found hanging near the main stage of the SKM on the Singhu border. In this heinous case of Dalit oppression that reached the outskirts of Delhi after walking from the village chaupal, the SKM leaders, instead of shying away from their responsibility, should clarify their side.”

It may be noted that leaders on Friday said that “The SKM is against sacrilege of any religious text or symbol, but that does not give anyone the right to take the law in their own hands. We demand that the culprits be punished according to law after investigating the allegation of murder and conspiracy behind sacrilege.”

However, netizens like Ambedkarite artist Siddhesh Gautam said, "The incident should haunt every ‘peaceful protestor’ who didn’t do anything to stop it."

Related:

Kundli murder: Plea in SC seeking removal of farmers from protest site
Haryana: Mutilated body found at Kundli border
Kundli murder in no way related to the farmers’ struggle: Farmer leaders

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

UP: BJP workers threaten SHO, create ruckus in police station

The video of the incident was shot by other police personnel, where the BJP workers can be clearly seen misbehaving and shouting at the police officer

15 Oct 2021

BJP workers allegedly threatened the SHO of Majhola police station

BJP workers allegedly threatened the SHO of Majhola police station, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, and the police has now lodged a case against 35 unnamed and 6 named persons. It was BJP youth-wing district President Abhishek Chaubey and his men who reportedly barged into the police station, misbehaved with the police personnel and threatened the SHO, while someone in the background can be heard chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jay”.

The video of the incident was posted by News24 channel on their Twitter account:

 

 

One person can be heard shouting at the SHO, “Aapki himmat kaise hui (How dare you)” while another man throws a file at the SHO’s desk asking, “How dare you shoot a video?” and then a lot of commotion follows. Then there is another video where the people are seen mediating with the police that there was no rioting and saying that we are not terrorists. He can be heard demanding that police should not lodge the case. “Case ko aapko vapis lena hoga (you will have to withdraw the case)”. “Hum dikhate hai aapko shaanti bhang kya hota hai (we will show you how disturbance is caused),” one of them said.

The police say that Chaubey and his men have been booked for creating disturbance after they allegedly had a dispute with the police for organising Durga Pooja event.

The incident took place last week and SP, Moradabad, Amit Anand tol TOI, “An FIR has been registered against 41 people- six named and 35 unidentified – under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) among others. Further legal action is underway”.

Related:

Hate Watch: Street play on "Love Jihad" gets Sudharshan TV excited

Hate watch: BJP man makes racist, anti-Dalit social media posts about Dr. Udit Raj

UP court denies bail Ashish Mishra in Lakhimpur Kheri case

UP: BJP workers threaten SHO, create ruckus in police station

The video of the incident was shot by other police personnel, where the BJP workers can be clearly seen misbehaving and shouting at the police officer

BJP workers allegedly threatened the SHO of Majhola police station

BJP workers allegedly threatened the SHO of Majhola police station, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, and the police has now lodged a case against 35 unnamed and 6 named persons. It was BJP youth-wing district President Abhishek Chaubey and his men who reportedly barged into the police station, misbehaved with the police personnel and threatened the SHO, while someone in the background can be heard chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jay”.

The video of the incident was posted by News24 channel on their Twitter account:

 

 

One person can be heard shouting at the SHO, “Aapki himmat kaise hui (How dare you)” while another man throws a file at the SHO’s desk asking, “How dare you shoot a video?” and then a lot of commotion follows. Then there is another video where the people are seen mediating with the police that there was no rioting and saying that we are not terrorists. He can be heard demanding that police should not lodge the case. “Case ko aapko vapis lena hoga (you will have to withdraw the case)”. “Hum dikhate hai aapko shaanti bhang kya hota hai (we will show you how disturbance is caused),” one of them said.

The police say that Chaubey and his men have been booked for creating disturbance after they allegedly had a dispute with the police for organising Durga Pooja event.

The incident took place last week and SP, Moradabad, Amit Anand tol TOI, “An FIR has been registered against 41 people- six named and 35 unidentified – under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) among others. Further legal action is underway”.

Related:

Hate Watch: Street play on "Love Jihad" gets Sudharshan TV excited

Hate watch: BJP man makes racist, anti-Dalit social media posts about Dr. Udit Raj

UP court denies bail Ashish Mishra in Lakhimpur Kheri case

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Tripura HC denies bail in mob-lynching death of 18-yr-old Muslim

The mob suspected that the boy was a cattle lifter, however no cattle was found in his possession

15 Oct 2021

Tripura HC

Tripura High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to an accused involved in the lynching of an 18-year old Muslim man as it was suspected that he was in possession of stolen cattle. The bench of Justice SG Chattopadhyay noted that the deceased was brutally lynched even though no cattle was found in his possession.

The police had found that one Saiful Islam of about 18 years’ of age was lying on the street at Sovaram Chow Para with several cut wound on his body and was unable to speak. He succumbed to his injuries after been taken to the hospital. The deceased had allegedly stolen cattle and was brutally assaulted by a mob. During investigation, the police found the applicant, Gagan Debbarma to be a suspect and named him accused.

The applicant sought pre-arrest bail on the ground that other co-accused have been released on bail and that he has no antecedents.

The prosecutor, R Datta argued that the youth was brutally murdered by a mob on suspicion that he was in the team of cattle lifters, and the statements of the eye witnesses has revealed the name of the present accused petitioner as one of the members of the mob who were found chasing the deceased and killing him. Furthermore, the accused also tried to bury his body in an attempt to destroy evidence.

“This is one of the gravest forms of offence known to the society in which the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted to the accused,” Datta argued. He also submitted that other members of the mob are yet to be identified and granting pre-arrest bail would frustrate the investigation. He also argued that the ground of parity does not apply since the other accused were first arrested by police and were interrogated and the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail.

The court observed that apart from the gravity of offence, there are other factors which are unfavourable to the accused applicant in this case. “A young boy of 18 years was brutally lynched by a mob only on the suspicion that he was a cattle lifter even though no cattle was found in his possession,” the court observed. The court also pointed out that eye-witness versions demonstrate that the applicant was one of the members of the mob who was found chasing and lynching the deceased.

The court cited Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 whereby the apex court held that “Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.”

In view of the facts, the court decided to not grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

CJP approaches minorities commission over attacks on Christian nuns, prayer congregation in UP

Uttar Pradesh: Who are these Hindutva mobs prowling the streets, targeting minorities?

Gujarat: Mob brutally attacks two teenage Madrasa students on a busy road

Tripura HC denies bail in mob-lynching death of 18-yr-old Muslim

The mob suspected that the boy was a cattle lifter, however no cattle was found in his possession

Tripura HC

Tripura High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to an accused involved in the lynching of an 18-year old Muslim man as it was suspected that he was in possession of stolen cattle. The bench of Justice SG Chattopadhyay noted that the deceased was brutally lynched even though no cattle was found in his possession.

The police had found that one Saiful Islam of about 18 years’ of age was lying on the street at Sovaram Chow Para with several cut wound on his body and was unable to speak. He succumbed to his injuries after been taken to the hospital. The deceased had allegedly stolen cattle and was brutally assaulted by a mob. During investigation, the police found the applicant, Gagan Debbarma to be a suspect and named him accused.

The applicant sought pre-arrest bail on the ground that other co-accused have been released on bail and that he has no antecedents.

The prosecutor, R Datta argued that the youth was brutally murdered by a mob on suspicion that he was in the team of cattle lifters, and the statements of the eye witnesses has revealed the name of the present accused petitioner as one of the members of the mob who were found chasing the deceased and killing him. Furthermore, the accused also tried to bury his body in an attempt to destroy evidence.

“This is one of the gravest forms of offence known to the society in which the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted to the accused,” Datta argued. He also submitted that other members of the mob are yet to be identified and granting pre-arrest bail would frustrate the investigation. He also argued that the ground of parity does not apply since the other accused were first arrested by police and were interrogated and the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail.

The court observed that apart from the gravity of offence, there are other factors which are unfavourable to the accused applicant in this case. “A young boy of 18 years was brutally lynched by a mob only on the suspicion that he was a cattle lifter even though no cattle was found in his possession,” the court observed. The court also pointed out that eye-witness versions demonstrate that the applicant was one of the members of the mob who was found chasing and lynching the deceased.

The court cited Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 whereby the apex court held that “Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.”

In view of the facts, the court decided to not grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

CJP approaches minorities commission over attacks on Christian nuns, prayer congregation in UP

Uttar Pradesh: Who are these Hindutva mobs prowling the streets, targeting minorities?

Gujarat: Mob brutally attacks two teenage Madrasa students on a busy road

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Bom HC to hear Dr. Varavara Rao’s bail extension plea on Oct 26

The court has extended his time to surrender to NIA until October 28 in the interim

15 Oct 2021

Varavara Rao’s bail extension

The Bombay High Court has further extended Dr. Varavara Rao’s time to surrender to National Investigation Agency (NIA) until October 28, as his application to extend his medical bail remains pending before the court. The bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal have agreed to hear his application on October 26.

In his application Rao has sought to extend the temporary bail granted to him on medical grounds for a period of 6 months in February, and has also sought permission to stay in Telangana in his home where he can be taken care of by his family, as staying in Mumbai was proving to be expensive for him.

Rao has stated that apart from his neurological issues, he also suffers from lacunar infarcts (dead brain tissue) due to arterial blockages in the brain and has been recommended cataract surgery for his eyes.

Rao was granted temporary bail owing to his deteriorating health condition in February for a period of 6 months. In his plea he has mentioned that it is very difficult for him staying with his 72-year-old wife in Mumbai, away from his home, as the same is unaffordable in terms of living expenses and health services.

It is pertinent to note that out of all the accused in Bhima Koregaon case, Rao is the only one who has been granted such temporary bail, while others continue to languish in prison. Fr. Stan Swamy who was 84 years of age, died on July 5 in his many attempts to seek freedom from jail. 

In February, the Bombay High Court had granted medical bail to Rao owing to his deteriorating health in the past one year, and while also taking into consideration his advanced age.

The NIA has opposed Rao’s plea stating that the medical reports do not disclose any major ailment necessitating him to take treatment in Hyderabad, and that any modification to the earlier order will destroy the basis on which it was passed. However, it may be pointed out that the court, while granting bail in February, had noted that Rao suffered from cerebral atrophy and bouts of delirium induced by old age, and had noted that Rao would face acceleration and intensification of ailments if he continues to remain in custody and even though the Hospital had cleared him for discharge, the court had still taken the view that condition of old age, sickness, infirmity and multiple health ailments suffered by him indicate that his continued custody would be incompatible with his health conditions.

The application will be now heard on October 26.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

95% pendency of trial of UAPA cases, 85% cases pending investigation: NCRB report

Bombay HC extends Varavara Rao’s time to surrender to custody until Sept 25

Varavara Rao seeks extension of medical bail

Bom HC to hear Dr. Varavara Rao’s bail extension plea on Oct 26

The court has extended his time to surrender to NIA until October 28 in the interim

Varavara Rao’s bail extension

The Bombay High Court has further extended Dr. Varavara Rao’s time to surrender to National Investigation Agency (NIA) until October 28, as his application to extend his medical bail remains pending before the court. The bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal have agreed to hear his application on October 26.

In his application Rao has sought to extend the temporary bail granted to him on medical grounds for a period of 6 months in February, and has also sought permission to stay in Telangana in his home where he can be taken care of by his family, as staying in Mumbai was proving to be expensive for him.

Rao has stated that apart from his neurological issues, he also suffers from lacunar infarcts (dead brain tissue) due to arterial blockages in the brain and has been recommended cataract surgery for his eyes.

Rao was granted temporary bail owing to his deteriorating health condition in February for a period of 6 months. In his plea he has mentioned that it is very difficult for him staying with his 72-year-old wife in Mumbai, away from his home, as the same is unaffordable in terms of living expenses and health services.

It is pertinent to note that out of all the accused in Bhima Koregaon case, Rao is the only one who has been granted such temporary bail, while others continue to languish in prison. Fr. Stan Swamy who was 84 years of age, died on July 5 in his many attempts to seek freedom from jail. 

In February, the Bombay High Court had granted medical bail to Rao owing to his deteriorating health in the past one year, and while also taking into consideration his advanced age.

The NIA has opposed Rao’s plea stating that the medical reports do not disclose any major ailment necessitating him to take treatment in Hyderabad, and that any modification to the earlier order will destroy the basis on which it was passed. However, it may be pointed out that the court, while granting bail in February, had noted that Rao suffered from cerebral atrophy and bouts of delirium induced by old age, and had noted that Rao would face acceleration and intensification of ailments if he continues to remain in custody and even though the Hospital had cleared him for discharge, the court had still taken the view that condition of old age, sickness, infirmity and multiple health ailments suffered by him indicate that his continued custody would be incompatible with his health conditions.

The application will be now heard on October 26.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

95% pendency of trial of UAPA cases, 85% cases pending investigation: NCRB report

Bombay HC extends Varavara Rao’s time to surrender to custody until Sept 25

Varavara Rao seeks extension of medical bail

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Subscribe to Rule of Law