Man masturbates next to woman journalist in bus, she beats him up with slippers

London, Feb 14: Liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya once again asked the Indian banks to take back 100 per cent of the principal amount owed to them at the end of his three-day British High Court appeal on Thursday against an extradition order to India.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to an alleged Rs 9,000 crores in unpaid bank loans, said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are fighting over the same assets and not treating him reasonably in the process.

“I request the banks with folded hands, take 100 per cent of your principal back, immediately,” he said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

“The Enforcement Directorate attached the assets on the complaint by the banks that I was not paying them. I have not committed any offenses under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) that the Enforcement Directorate should suo moto attach my assets," he said.

"I am saying, please banks take your money. The ED is saying no, we have a claim over these assets. So, the ED on the one side and the banks on the other are fighting over the same assets,” he added.

Asked about heading back to India, he noted: “I should be where my family is, where my interests are.

"If the CBI and the ED are going to be reasonable, it’s a different story. What all they are doing to me for the last four years is totally unreasonable.”

Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-member bench presiding over the appeal, concluded hearing the arguments in the case and said they will be handing down their verdict at a later date after considering the oral as well as written submissions in the “very dense” case over the next few weeks.

On a day of heated arguments between Mallya’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) counsel Mark Summers, arguing on behalf of the Indian government, both sides clashed over the prima facie case of fraud and deception against Mallya.

“We submit that he lied to get the loans, then did something with the money he wasn’t supposed to and then refused to give back the money. All this could be perceived by a jury as patently dishonest conduct,” said Summers.

“What they [Kingfisher Airlines] were saying [to the banks] about profitability going forward was knowingly wrong,” he said, as he took the High Court through evidence to counter Mallya’s lawyers’ claims that Westminster Magistrates Court Judge Emma Arbuthnot had fallen into error when she found a case to answer in the Indian courts against Mallya.

Mallya, who remains on bail on an extradition warrant, is not required to attend the hearings but has been in court to observe the proceedings since the three-day appeal opened on Tuesday. A key defence to disprove a prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation on his part has revolved around the fact that Kingfisher Airlines was the victim of economic misfortune alongside other Indian airlines.

However, the CPS has argued that “there is enough in the 32,000 pages of overall evidence to fulfil the [extradition] treaty obligations that there is a case to answer”. “There is not just a prima facie case but overwhelming evidence of dishonesty… and given the volume and depth of evidence the District Judge [Arbuthnot] had before her, the judgment is comprehensive and detailed with the odd error but nothing that impacts the prima facie case,” said Summers.

At the start of the appeal, Mallya’s counsel claimed Arbuthnot did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment. The High Court must establish if the magistrates’ court had in fact fallen short on a point of law in its verdict in favour of extradition.

Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well as the Indian High Commission in London, have been present in court to take notes during the course of the appeal hearing.

Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.

At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found “clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds” and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.

Mallya remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017 involving a bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.

New Delhi, Jan 15: Suspended Deputy Superintendent of J&K Police Davinder Singh had ferried Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Naveed Babu to Jammu last year also and facilitated his return to Shopian after "rest and recuperation", officials interrogating him said here Tuesday.

"Meri mati maari gayi thi (I must have lost my mind to do what I did)," an interrogator quoted Singh as saying after the DSP failed to impress them with his theory of catching a big terrorist.

Singh was arrested last Saturday along with Naveed Babu alias Babar Azam, a resident of Nazneenpora in South Kashmir's Shopian district, and his associate Asif Ahmad.

He is believed to have taken Rs 12 lakh for smuggling the two to Chandigarh for providing them accommodation for a couple of months, officials said. The officials, who have been spending considerable time questioning Singh, said there have been many inconsistencies in his statements and everything was being crosschecked and corroborated with the confessions of captured militants who have been kept in different rooms at an interrogation centre in South Kashmir.

During questioning it emerged that Singh had taken them to Jammu in 2019 also, the officials said.

In a tone laced with sarcasm, they said the DSP was taking the militants for "rest and recuperation".

Naveed told the interrogators that they used to stay in the hilly regions to avoid the J&K police and left the areas to escape harsh winters, they said.

The official said the DSP's bank accounts and other assets were being verified by the police and papers were being collected, amid speculations that the case may be handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Going into the service history of Singh, majority of retired and serving officials of the JKP spoken to referred to a proverb -- coming events cast their shadows long before -- to say that if action had been taken against the officer during his probation period, such things would not have happened.

Recruited in 1990 as a sub-inspector, Singh along with another probationary officer were subject of an internal enquiry where some narcotics had been seized from a truck. However, the contraband was sold by Singh and another sub-inspector, the officials recalled.

There was a move to dismiss them from the service which was stalled by an Inspector General rank officer purely on humanitarian ground and the duo was shifted to the Special Operations Group, a team of policemen engaged in counter-militancy offensive.

However, he could not last there for long and was shifted this time to the police lines only to be rehabilitated in 1997 again in the SOG.

During this period, he was posted in Budgam and is alleged to have indulged in extortion for which he was sent back to the police lines.

His proper rehabilitation began in 2015 by the then Director General of Police K Rajendra, who posted him in district headquarters of Shopian and Pulwama, the officials said.

However, after some alleged wrongdoing during his stint in Pulwama, the then Director General of Police S P Vaid transferred him in August 2018 to the sensitive Anti-Hijacking Unit in Srinagar, though the move was opposed by some other officers.

An advocate, Irfan Ahmad Mir, was driving the vehicle when they were caught by the police on National Highway in Kulgam district.

The advocate, who has also been arrested, had travelled to Pakistan five times on an Indian passport.

Tuticorin, Jul 2: The Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) of Tamil Nadu police have arrested five policemen working in Sathankulam police station in Tuticorin district for the murder of P. Jeyaraj and his son J. Bennicks, officials said.

The CBCID also altered the first information report (FIR) registered on the death of Jeyaraj and Bennicks as a murder case from the earlier charge of suspicious death.

The five arrested policemen are: Inspector Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors Balakrishnan and Raghu Ganesh, Head Constable Murugan and Constable Muthuraj.

Ganesh was remanded to custody till July 16 on late Wednesday.

According to Inspector General CBCID Shankar, 12 teams have been formed to carry out the probe into the custodial death of father and son Jeyaraj and Bennicks.

Jeyaraj and Bennicks had been booked for not closing their mobile shop in time on June 19 by the Sathankulam police. They were sent to judicial custody and lodged in Kovilpatti jail on June 21.

Jeyaraj died on June 22 night and Bennicks on June 23 morning in judicial custody, allegedly due to the police torture.

The Madras High Court Bench in Madurai which took up the case suo moto had said there was prima facie evidence to register a murder case against the Sathankulam police officials.

The Kovilpatti Judicial Magistrate M.S. Bharathidasan who was asked to inquire into the case of brutal torture of AJeyaraj and his son Bennicks by the Sathankulam police on June 19 and their subsequent deaths had submitted is report to the High Court.

A woman police constable Revathy, at the Sathankulam police station, in her deposition before Bharathidasan had said that Jeyaraj and Bennicks were beaten with batons throughout the June 19 night.

According to Bharathidasan's report, Revathy also said the victims' blood stains were on the batons of the station police officials and on tables.

She said the batons and the tables should be secured so that the evidence is not lost, the report stated.

Expressing fear that she may be targeted later, Revathy was initially reluctant to sign a printout of her statement but later on being assured of her safety she signed the document.

The court also transferred the probe into the deaths of Jeyaraj and Bennicks to the Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to gather and protect the evidence till the case is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The High Court has initiated criminal contempt cases against three police officials - Additional Superintendent of Police Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police Prathapan and constable Maharajan - for their behaviour at the Sathankulam police station in front of Magistrate Bharathidasan.