Indian Army rubbishes Pakistan's claim of killing 11 soldiers

New Delhi, Jul 23: A Delhi court Thursday allowed 198 Indonesians to walk free on payment of varying fines, after they accepted mild charges under the plea bargain process, related to various violations including visa norms while attending the Tablighi Jamaat event here during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Metropolitan Magistrate Vasundhara Azad allowed 100 Indonesians to walk free on payment of a fine of Rs 7,000 each, said advocates Ashima Mandla, Fahim Khan and Ahmed Khan, appearing for them.

Metropolitan Magistrate Swati Sharma allowed 98 Indonesians to walk free on payment of a fine of Rs 5,000 each.

The court directed the 98 Indonesians to deposit their fines to PM CARES Fund.

The Sub-divisional magistrate of Defence Colony, who was the complainant in the case, Assistant Commissioner of Police of Lajpat Nagar and Inspector of Nizamuddin said they have no objection to it.

However, one Indonesian did not plead guilty to the charges against them and claimed trial before the court.

Under plea bargaining, the accused plead guilty to the offence praying for a lesser punishment. The Criminal Procedure of Code allows for plea bargaining in cases where the maximum punishment is 7-year imprisonment; offences don''t affect the socio-economic conditions of the society and the offence is not committed against a woman or a child below 14 years.

The foreigners were chargesheeted for attending the religious congregation at Nizamuddin Markaz event in the national capital by allegedly violating visa conditions, indulging in missionary activities illegally and violating government guidelines, issued in the wake of Covid-19 outbreak in the country.

They were granted bail earlier by the court on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each.

New Delhi, Jan 10: An IPS officer's thumb was bitten by a woman protester when he was pushing back agitators, who were trying to march towards the Rashtrapati Bhawan here on Thursday, police sources said.

The protesters had gathered after a call was given by JNU Students' Union president Aishe Ghosh to march towards President's House to demand the removal of University's Vice Chancellor, M Jagadesh Kumar.

Ingit Pratap Singh, a 2011 batch officer, who is currently posted as the additional deputy commissioner of the southwest district, was injured in the attack.

According to sources, Singh was trying to pull a male protester when the woman, in a bid to shield her friend, bit Singh's left thumb.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.