Accused who obtains bail cannot be permitted to urge that he was not aware of the dates in the criminal case filed against him

Supreme Court has observed that accused who obtains bail cannot be permitted to urge that he was not aware of the dates in the criminal case filed against him.

A bench of Justice Gupta and Justice Kant has passed the order in the case titled as TARA DEVI vs BHIKAR RAI @ BHIKARI RAI on 04.10.2019.

Supreme Court observed “The first bail application of the respondent no.1 was rejected on 17.02.2018 and liberty was given to the appellant to make a prayer for renewal, if the trial is not concluded within six months. This six months were to end on 07.08.2018. However, prior to that the respondent no.1 filed a bail application before the High Court on the ground that though this period of six months has not elapsed, he is seeking provisional bail for treatment of his wife, who had been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi for some neuro problem. Considering the prayer, the bail was granted. But unfortunately High Court did not grant provisional bail as prayed for a limited period but granted permanent bail”.

It further observed “The record produced before us also shows that the respondent no.1, who got bail sometime in June 18, 2018 did not appear in the Court for more than a year. It was only after notice was issued in the present petition that the respondent no.1 appeared before the Trial Court. It is now urged that the appellant was not served with summons. We are unable to understand or appreciate this argument. In a matter where a person against whom a criminal case is pending, obtains and furnishes bail, he cannot be permitted to urge that he is not aware of the dates in the criminal case against him”.

Supreme Court then cancelled the bail saying “The respondent no.1 is also involved in various other criminal cases and all those facts were not taken into consideration by the High Court and only in view of the alleged illness of his wife he was granted interim bail. It is apparent that the respondent no.1 has misused the liberty granted to him. Therefore, we cancel the bail of the appellant. Appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to the concerned jail authorities”.

Court grands bail to BJP leader S Ve Shekher

Chennai: A court today granted bail to BJP leader S Ve Shekher, against whom a case was filed for sharing a Facebook post allegedly containing derogatory references to women journalists and the media.
Chennai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Malarvizhi granted bail to the actor-turned-politician, when his plea came up for hearing, with a direction to him to appear before the court on July 18.
Apprehending arrest in the case, Shekher had moved the Madras High Court, seeking anticipatory bail.

The court had on May 10 dismissed it and sharply rebuked him, saying that when a celebrity like him forwards such messages, it sends a wrong message to society..
On May 22, the apex court had granted interim protection from arrest till June 1 to Shekher and sought a reply from the state government, challenging the May 10 court order. It had directed that no coercive action be taken against him till then.
On June 12, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, rejected the charge sheet filed by police against Shekher and summoned him to appear before it on June 20.

An FIR was registered against Shekher by the cyber crime cell for alleged offences under various sections of the IPC, including insult intended to provoke breach of peace, gesture and words intended to insult the modesty of a woman and under provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

He had claimed in his plea that he was not the author of the Facebook post and was not aware about its contents when he forwarded it after receiving it from a person named Tirumalai Sa.

He had also said that he had removed the post after he came to know about its content.
He had claimed in the high court that the case was lodged against him by making baseless allegations and there was not an iota of truth in these. He had also said there was no intention on his part to defame or hurt anyone.
Journalists had condemned and staged protests against Shekher for the post, which he had later deleted.

Delhi HC extends bail of 2008 BMW hit-n-run convict Utsav Bhasin

Delhi HC extends bail of 2008 BMW hit-n-run convict Utsav Bhasin
Delhi HC extends bail of 2008 BMW hit-n-run convict Utsav Bhasin

The Delhi High Court today extended till August 23 the bail granted to the 2008 BMW hit- and-run convict Utsav Bhasin by a sessions court.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal extended the relief after the convict informed the court that the bail granted to him by the trial court is expiring on August 14.

Bhasin sought extension of the relief, saying he has also challenged the orders of conviction and sentence awarded to him by the sessions court here on July 15.

Accepting his contention, the judge said, “I extend the bail till August 23,” adding that the bail bond will remain the same as imposed by the trial court.

The court, meanwhile, asked senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Bhasin, to direct his client to give the compensation amount to the victims and sought their presence before it on the next date of hearing.

The trial court had directed the convict to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the deceased victim’s kin and Rs 2 lakh to the other injured man, a journalist, who was riding pillion on a two-wheeler.

The sessions court had on July 15 sent Bhasin to two years in jail, for mowing down the motorcyclist with his over-speeding BMW car in 2008 while observing that cow killers get more stringent punishment than errant drivers.

“Sentence for killing cow is five or seven or 14 years in different states but in case of death of a human being caused by rash or negligent driving, sentence prescribed in law is only 2 years,” Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Kumar had said.

The court had also granted him a statutory bail for enabling him to file an appeal in the high court and asked him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with a surety of like amount.

The court had while convicting him dropped the charges of 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.

Bhasin was driving his BMW car when he had hit the two- wheeler on Moolchand flyover in South Delhi, killing Anuj Singh on September 11, 2008. A TV channel journalist was also injured in the incident.

( Source – PTI )

SC notice to CBI on plea against bail to MLA Amanmani Tripathi

SC notice to CBI on plea against bail to MLA Amanmani Tripathi
SC notice to CBI on plea against bail to MLA Amanmani Tripathi

The Supreme Court today sought a response from the CBI on a plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Amanmani Tripathi, accused of killing his wife Sara Singh.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan issued notice to the probe agency and Tripathi onn the plea filed by Seema Singh, the mother of Sara.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, appearing for Seema Singh, assailed the high court order granting bail to the lawmaker.

The court posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks.

“Given his political background, the Respondent No. 2 (Tripathi) has the potential of tampering with the evidence in the present case and thereby hindering with process of justice according to the due process established by law,” the plea said.

Singh also claimed that Tripathi has been threatening her after being released on bail.

She said that on May 2, two unidentified persons stopped her and threatened her with dire consequences if she continued to fight the case.

Tripathi, a sitting MLA from Nautanwa in Uttar Pradesh, was chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on February 18 this year in the case.

He is the son of politician Amarmani Tripathi, who has been convicted of murder of poet Madhumita Shukhla and is serving life sentence in that matter.

The Allahabad High Court had on March 9 granted bail to expelled Samajwadi Party leader Tripathi, charged by the CBI with the murder of his wife.

Tripathi’s wife Sara was killed in July 2015 in what was initially believed to be a road accident.

However, her parents alleged that she was murdered by her husband of two years.

The matter was then handed over to the CBI and Tripathi was arrested and sent to jail on November 25, 2016.

Tripathi, who has contested from Nautanwa Assembly segment as an independent candidate, was expelled from the Samajwadi Party on February 23 last for ‘anti-party activities’.

Both Amarmani and his wife Madhumani were awarded life sentence in 2007 by a CBI court for the murder of budding poetess Madhumita Shukla.

( Source – PTI )

Court refuses bail to accused who forced girl to have sex

A local court here refused bail to a man who allegedly kidnapped a 16-year-old girl and forced here to have sex with a co-accused for several days.

On February 9, the girl’s father had lodged an FIR at sector 20 police station stating that his daughter had been kidnapped.

Accused Salman pleaded innocence and said the victim in her statement has not confirmed rape by him and he was not accused in the initial FIR.

Prosecution had opposed his bail application.

Prosecution officer stated that victim in her statement stated that on February 1 when she was passing through the street someone from behind put piece of cloth on her face and nose and she fell unconscious.

When she gained consciousness and opened her eyes she found herself in a room.

Then two men Salman and Aas Mohammad came to the room.

Both are her neighbours. They had also bolted her neighbour Amarjit, who is a co-accused in the case, in the room.

For three days they did not give food to her and Amarjit and forced them to have sex.

Both accused had a fight with her and Amarjit’s family in the past. To take revenge they kidnapped both of them.

For several days she was forced to have sex with Amarjit on gunpoint by the accused who also made a video clip of the act.

Later police had arrested the accused and charged them under IPC sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act.

Prosecution stated that from her statement it was clear that accused Salman and Aas Mohammad forced the victim to have sex with Amarjit.

Additional Sessions Judge Ram Naresh Maurya refused bail to accused Salman, D S R Tripathi, Senior Prosecution Officer, said.

Woman claims to be HIV+, court grants bail in flesh trade case

Woman claims to be HIV+, court grants bail in flesh trade case
Woman claims to be HIV+, court grants bail in flesh trade case

A woman, who claimed to be HIV positive and was arrested for allegedly running a brothel and forcing young girls into prostitution, has been granted bail by a Delhi court.

The court, however, noted that as per the police and jail authorities, the woman could not bring any record of her claimed disease.

Special Judge Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal granted the relief to the woman, who was in judicial custody since May 13, while keeping in view the special concessions being given to women by legislature regarding bail.

The court, however, made it clear that if the woman would be found indulging in prostitution again, the prosecution may seek cancellation of her bail.

“Keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a woman, on the basis of corollary drawn from Section 437 CrPC, regarding special concessions being given to women by legislature with respect to matters regarding bail, she is entitled for bail.

“The factual aspect concerning recovery of prosecutrix and other allegations will face litmus test during trial,” the court said and released the woman on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 15,000 and a surety of a like amount.

According to the prosecution, police raided a brothel in G B Road in Central Delhi and rescued a 20-year-old woman who claimed that she was brought here by someone 11-year-ago and left with the accused.

It was alleged in the FIR that the accused used to force the victim to indulge in immoral activities and used to take money from customers.

The accused was arrested by the police and a case was lodged at Kamla Market police station here under the provisions of the IPC including rape, kidnapping, procuration of a minor girl and buying or disposing of a person as a slave and Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act.

The woman had sought bail claiming that she was an HIV positive patient and filed a certificate issued by the Delhi State Aids Control Society.

The prosecutor, however, opposed the bail plea, saying the certificate was sent for verification to the Delhi State Aids Control Society and it was reported that though the document has been in the woman’s name it could not be found in their original records.

It said the name has been faked on the certificate by someone else and it could not be verified as to whether the certificate was issued for the woman.

( Source – PTI )

Symbol case: Accused seeks bail, court to pass order on June 9

Symbol case: Accused seeks bail, court to pass order on June 9
Symbol case: Accused seeks bail, court to pass order on June 9

An alleged middleman, arrested in the Election Commission bribery case, today sought bail in a special court here on the ground of parity with AIADMK (Amma) faction leader T T V Dhinakaran.

The police, however, opposed the bail plea of Sukesh Chandrashekar, saying he was involved in 21 cases, majority of which are related to the offence of cheating.

Public prosecutor Balbir Singh claimed the police has recovered a CD containing the alleged telephonic conversations between Chandrashekar and Dhinakaran. He said Chandrashekar promised Dhinakaran that he will not only arrange the symbol for his faction but also fix the poll date as per certain auspicious astrological time at the behest of the AIADMK (Amma) leader.

Special Judge Poonam Chaudhry after hearing the arguments reserved for June 9 the order on the application.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for Chandrashekar in his second bail plea, claimed that if Dhinakaran, for whose benefit the alleged offence was committed, was granted the relief, the same should also be applied to his client.

“The persons for whose benefit the alleged offence was committed, were granted bail. There was no confessional statement of Chandrashekar as claimed by the police. It’s only a disclosure statement.

“The police claimed that if Chandrashekar, an influential person, was released on bail, he may try to tamper with the evidence. Dhinakaran, who was more influential, has already been released on bail,” Aggarwal argued.

The counsel contended that police is yet to identify the public servant, who was said to be lured by the accused.

Public prosecutor Singh, however, opposed the bail plea saying apart from the CD, the agency has also recovered Rs 1.3 crore cash and fake MP, MLA ID cards from the possession of the accused.

Chandrashekar, who was arrested on April 16, had claimed that he was a “scapegoat” and had been “falsely implicated” in the case.

The court had dismissed his earlier bail application on the ground that he could tamper with evidence.

Dhinakaran, his close aide Mallikarjuna, suspected hawala operators Nathu Singh and Lalit Kumar have been granted bail.

Dhinakaran was arrested here on the night of April 25 after four days of questioning for allegedly attempting to bribe Election Commission (EC) officials for the symbol.

His faction had hoped to obtain the symbol for the bypoll to the R K Nagar Assembly seat in Tamil Nadu, which was later cancelled by the EC after the alleged irregularities were reported.

The bypoll was necessitated by the death of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, who represented the constituency.

The EC had frozen the AIADMK’s symbol after the two factions of the party — one led by Dhinakaran’s aunt Sasikala and the other by former chief minister O Panneerselvam — staked a claim to it.

Mallikarjuna was arrested for allegedly facilitating a Rs 50-crore deal between Dhinakaran and Chandrashekar.

Dhinakaran has been accused of arranging the money from undisclosed sources and getting it transferred from Chennai to Delhi through illegal channels.

( Source – PTI )

Symbol case: Court seeks police reply on bail plea of accused

Symbol case: Court seeks police reply on bail plea of accused
Symbol case: Court seeks police reply on bail plea of accused

A Special court today sought a response from Delhi Police on the bail application of an alleged middleman arrested in the Election Commission bribery case involving AIADMK (Amma) faction leader T T V Dhinakaran.

Special Judge Poonam Chaudhry issued a notice to Delhi Police’s Crime Branch on the plea and posted the matter for arguments on June 7.

Accused Sukesh Chandrashekar sought relief on grounds of parity with Dhinakaran, who was granted bail on June 1. He said his custody period had exceeded that of the AIADMK leader.

Chandrashekar, arrested on April 16, claimed he had been made a “scapegoat” and “falsely implicated” in the case.

The plea, filed through advocate Anand Pandey, said Dhinakaran had been granted bail even though he was more “influential” than Chandrashekar.

This is Chandrashekar’s second bail plea as the court had declined an earlier application fearing that he could tamper with evidence.

The court will tomorrow pronounce its order on the bail pleas of suspected hawala operator Nathu Singh and co-accused Lalit Kumar, who are in judicial custody.

Dhinakaran and his close aide Mallikarjuna were granted bail by the court which had said the poll officials who were allegedly being bribed so that Dhinakaran’s faction of the AIADMK could get the ‘two leaves’ election symbol were yet to be identified.

Dhinakaran was arrested here on the night of April 25 after four days of questioning for allegedly attempting to bribe Election Commission (EC) officials for the symbol.

His faction had hoped to obtain the symbol for the bypoll to the R K Nagar Assembly seat in Tamil Nadu, which was later cancelled by the EC after the alleged irregularities were reported in the media.

The bypoll was necessitated by the death of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, who represented the constituency.

The EC had frozen the AIADMK’s symbol after two factions of the party — one led by Dhinakaran’s aunt Sasikala and the other by former chief minister O Panneerselvam — staked a claim to it.

Mallikarjuna was arrested for allegedly facilitating a Rs 50-crore deal between Dhinakaran and Chandrashekar.

Dhinakaran has been accused of arranging the money from undisclosed sources and getting it transferred from Chennai to Delhi through illegal channels.

( Source – PTI )

SC seeks reply from Assam govt on IPS officer’s bail plea

SC seeks reply from Assam govt on IPS officer's bail plea
SC seeks reply from Assam govt on IPS officer’s bail plea

The Supreme Court has sought the Assam government’s response on a bail plea by suspended IPS officer N Rajamarthandan, accused of providing information to a member of a socio-political organisation flouting RTI Act rules.

A vacation bench of justices M M Shantanagoudar and Deepak Gupta issued notice to the state government and listed the matter for further hearing on June 19.

Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Rajamarthandan said the plea is against the May 15 order of the Gauhati High Court rejecting his bail.

In his plea, Rajamarthandan said that the case arises out of the disclosure under the Right To Information Act, 2005 of the SIT progress report in a local case.

“For no more than adhering to the spirit of the Right to Information Act, petitioner (Rajamarthandan) is being prosecuted and has been in custody since April 6, 2017, on registration of an FIR for offences under section 418, 471, 468 and 217 of IPC as well as section 5 (b) of Official Secrets Act and Section 98A of Assam Police Act,” he said.

The IPS officer of 2006 batch said that none of the offences are prima facie made out and all but one are bailable.

“Section 468 of IPC, is the sole non-bailable offence carrying a maximum of seven years, and the arrest itself is in contravention of the statutory requirement of section of 41 CrPC, that reasons should be recorded for effecting an arrest in cases carrying a seven year term or less,” he said.

The officer giving detail of the case said that a local rioting incident took place under Silapthar police station on March 6 where an office of All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) was ransacked and a case was registered against various persons alleged to be members of an organisation Nikhil Bharat Banglali Udbastu Samanway Samitee (NBBUSS).

On March 6, NBBUSS chief Subodh Biswas had allegedly instigated a mob at a rally with his speech that led to the incident. He was later arrested on March 22 from a place close to Bangladesh border in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas.

The IPS officer said that around 60 people were arrested by the local police in this regard and an SIT was set up to supervise the investigation by the police in the case.

“Petitioner, who was SSP, CID headed the four member SIT team. The other three members were from the local Assam Police but not the CID,” Rajamarthandan said.

He added that SIT gave its progress report on March 19, which noted the statements of 20 odd witnesses, video evidence and highlighted that that there is no direct evidence to show the presence of many arrested persons or others named in the FIR.

The officer in his plea said that the SIT progress report directed the investigating officer that cogent material should be collected before roping in people as offenders and keeping them in custody. The report was also submitted in court.

“The petitioner was also Public Information Officer, CID, an office under the Right to Information Act. Upon an application made by one Ambika Ray, advocate, under the Act, the petitioner is said to have given a copy of the said report to him,” he said.

The officer claimed that alleging that this handing over a copy of the progress report was an offence, an FIR was lodged against him on April 4, and subsequently the petitioner was arrested on April 6, after two days of interrogation.

“The state’s case is that the RTI application is ‘suspected to be’ in the petitioner’s hand and that this amounts to a forgery. It is also alleged that the information was shared on ‘WhatsApp’ with the applicant Ambika Ray,” he said.

He said that the state government has claimed that the CID is exempted from the Right to Information Act and so the progress report should not have been shared.

The incident of March 6 had sparked off widespread protests with the several organisations viewing it as an attack on the Assamese by the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.

( Source – PTI )

Journo accused of abetting suicide of jawan gets bail

Journo accused of abetting suicide of jawan gets bail
Journo accused of abetting suicide of jawan gets bail

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman journalist booked for abetting the suicide of an army jawan and also under the Official Secrets Act after observing that prima facie no offence is made out against the accused.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere on April 26 granted anticipatory bail to Poonam Agarwal, a senior journalist with The Quint and retired soldier and war veteran Deepchand Singh.

Last month, the Deolali Camp police in Nashik registered a case against Poonam and Deepchand under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including abetment of suicide of the jawan from Kerala Roy Mathew.

The scribe was also booked under sections 3 (spying) and 7 (interfering with officers of the police or members of the armed forces of Union) of the Official Secrets Act.

According to police, she was booked for violating Army rules by entering prohibited areas and conducting a shoot there.

Agrawal is accused of entering Heig Lines in Deolali camp without the permission of authorities and filming the premises besides carrying out a sting operation on Mathew and other jawans on February 24 in which she is said to have asked leading questions.

The case was registered after Mathew (33) was found hanging from the ceiling of a room in an abandoned barrack in Deolali cantonment here on March 2.

According to police, Mathew featured in the sting operation carried out by Poonam and Deepchand exposing the ‘buddy’ (Sahayak) system in the Army and had committed suicide over fear and shame.

Poonam and Deepchand approached the high court after a sessions court rejected their anticipatory bail pleas.

Senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for Poonam, argued that the sting operation was carried out in public interest and to expose the malaise in the Indian Army.

The High Court after hearing the arguments said, “After viewing the said clip, it appears that the purpose of the sting operation was to show that the ‘Sahayaks’ were made to do menial work like taking their seniors’ dogs for walks, taking their seniors’ children to schools and so on.”

“Prima facie at this stage, taking the prosecution case as it stands it is doubtful whether any offence under IPC or Official Secrets Act is attracted in the peculiar facts of the case,” Justice Dere said.

“Merely because the sting operation was done in a prohibited area would not automatically attract provision of the Official Secrets Act,” the court said.

The court granted Poonam and Deepchand anticipatory bail on a surety of Rs 25,000 and directed them to appear before the police on three days -May 2, May 3 and May 4 for recording their statement and questioning.

The court also directed Poonam to surrender to the police raw footage of the sting operation.

Mathew had joined the Army 13 years ago and was working as an artillery gunner with the Rocket Regiment 214 in Nashik camp for the last one year.

( Source – PTI )