1. Home
  2. Ishrat case: SC to hear plea for quashing action against Guj cops

Ishrat case: SC to hear plea for quashing action against Guj cops

March 1, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 1: The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a plea seeking quashing of criminal prosecution, suspension and other actions taken against Gujarat cops in the 2004 alleged fake encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan in view of recent testimony of jailed LET operative David Headley.

scHeadley, the Pakistani-American terrorist, had told to a Mumbai court that Jahan was a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative.

"Let it be listed. We will see it then," a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice U U Lalit said when advocate M L Sharma mentioned the matter for its urgent hearing.

Sharma said that the statement of Headley is significant as it conclusively establishes the fact that Jahan was an LeT operative.

Gujarat Police personnel, including the then DIG D G Vanzara, are facing trial in a Mumbai court for their alleged role in the encounter.

The plea, which cited the recent statements before a special court recorded by Headley, who allegedly conspired with LeT in plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, said the facts are now undisputed that all four persons killed by Gujarat Police, including Ishrat Jahan, were terrorists.

"The judicial proceeding and statement of David Headley, who conspired with LeT in plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, stated via video conference and recorded in the special court at Mumbai that four persons, including Ishrat Jahan who were killed in June 2004 by Gujarat Police, were a part of LeT terrorist organisation belonging to Pakistan and they were assigned to kill then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi," it said.

The plea sought a direction to close criminal proceedings and action taken in FIRs lodged by CBI against the Gujarat Police personnel and others, saying it was unconstitutional within the judicial facts and evidences of Headley.

It also sought a direction from the court declaring that killing of a terrorist is not an offence under Indian law and proper compensation be paid to the state police personnel in the interest of justice.

It also wanted initiation of suo motu perjury/contempt proceedings against the then Home Minister and CBI Director for concealing true facts before the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court and for filing a false affidavit pertaining to facts about Ishrat Jahan case.

Comments

IBRAHIM.HUSSAIN
 - 
Tuesday, 1 Mar 2016

A convicts statement can be made a witness in Ishrat Jahan case , anything can happen in India.

Mr. Modi and Amit Shah's involvement in this case was proven and Modi and Amit shah wants TO come out with a clean chit in this case. Advocate and Government lawyer Mr. Nikam is involved in this conspiracy and Nikam was awarded Padma Bhushan award for him becoming henchman of Modi.

We will wait and see what supreme court says.

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 6,2020

New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files. 

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.

It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.

The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.

On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.

A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.

The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.

The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI. 

The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 7,2020

New Delhi, Jan 7: When a reign of terror was unleashed by "masked goons" in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on Sunday, Delhi Police registered two cases against varsity students union president Aishe Ghosh, who was badly injured in the attack, within a span of five minutes.

The registration of cases on two separate complaints against Ghosh and other students filed by JNU security department on January 3 and January 4 were registered on Sunday night when the violence was on, triggering questions about the motive behind the timing.

While the FIRs against Ghosh and others were registered between 8.44 pm and 8.49 pm after the JNUSU president was admitted to AIIMS, an FIR on the Sunday violence was registered on Monday at 5.36 am against unknown persons. The Sunday violence case has been transferred to Crime Branch for further investigations.

Questions are being raised over the registration of FIRs on Sunday while the complaints were filed on the previous days. Students allege that it was an afterthought from the police and authorities, as a nationwide outrage erupted as soon as the violence was reported.

Delhi Police is under attack for not coming to the aid of students targeted by the mob of ABVP activists armed with iron rods and sticks who went on a rampage on the campus. While no single person in the Sunday violence was arrested, the police are also accused of being a "mute spectator" by allowing the rioters to leave the campus without being arrested.

In its complaints, the JNU Security Department has alleged that Ghosh and others entered into a verbal and physical scuffle with security guards, including women, when officials tried to open the Centre for Information System (CIS) that was blocked by students protesting against the fee hike and registration process.

While the January 3 complaint claims that the students switched off the power supply to the CIS and evicted staff forcefully, the January 4 complaint alleged that they damaged the information system.

They also claimed the students damaged the servers, made it dysfunctional, severely damaged optic fibre cables and broke the biometric system in the CIS. The complaint also cited a Supreme Court order that prevented any protest within 100 metres of Administration Block and claimed the students violated the direction.

The FIR filed on Sunday violence on the basis of the statement of Inspector Anand Yadav said that the first phase of violence was reported at 3.45 pm when "40-50 unidentified" people who had "covered their faces" attacked students in Periyar Hostel and the situation was brought under control.

However at around 7 pm, "50-60 people with rods in their hands" targeted students in Sabarmati Hostel in which students were attacked and public property destroyed.

The FIR said that students were injured but skipped the mention of the attack on teachers, who were injured. At least two faculty members Sucharita Sen and Ameet Parameswaran were taken to AIIMS while several other teachers suffered minor injuries.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 3,2020

Indore, Aug 3: In a bizarre development, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in a sexual harassment case on the condition that he will request the victim to tie a ‘rakhi’ on him with a promise to protect her “to the best of his ability for all times to come”.

Justice Rohit Arya on July 30 also ordered the man to pay Rs 11,000 to the complainant as a “customary ritual usually offered by brothers to sisters” on Raksha Bandhan and seek her blessings while visiting her with his wife and a box of sweets. “The applicant shall also tender Rs 5,000 to the son of the complainant for purchase of clothes and sweets,” the order said.

The court directed the accused to take photographs and receipts of payment made to the victim and her son, which should be filed through his lawyer for placing on record of the case before the Registry.

The victim, a resident of Ujjain district, had alleged that her neighbour, Vikram Bagri, entered her house and sexually harassed her on April 20. The police registered a case under Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 354 (A) (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The order said the man, in jail for more than two months, was released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with “one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, on the condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial,” and comply with conditions under Section 437 (3) of CrPC, along with other conditions.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.