Samajwadi Party brass wanted rape taint on Rahul Gandhi: Ex-MLA

July 31, 2012

rahul_copy_copyNew Delhi, July 31: In a startling revelation, a former MLA of the Samajwadi Party has told the Supreme Court that his party leadership had egged him to file a PIL in the Allahabad high court in 2010 against Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi accusing him of abduction and rape of an Amethi girl.

The HC, while dismissing the PIL, on March 7, 2011, had imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakh on petitioner Kishor Samrite and ordered a CBI probe against him. But, on appeal the apex court had on April 6, 2011, stayed the HC order and issued notices to the UP government and Gandhi.

Gandhi last Friday told the Supreme Court that accusations against him were false, malicious and baseless.

But, what made Samrite to strike back at SP was the affidavit filed by the Akhilesh Singh Yadav government terming him as a person who has lost his balance. Samrite said, "When the petitioner was called by senior leaders of the present ruling party (in the state) to file the writ petition, petitioner bona fide filed the writ petition."

"The state, in the changed political equation, is wanting to disown its actions and wash its hands and making a scapegoat of the petitioner," Samrite said and clarified that right from the beginning he had been taking a stand for inquiry into the alleged incident only and not for a probe against Gandhi.

The ex-MLA from Madhya Pradesh, who was elected on a SP ticket to the assembly from Lanji constituency in Balaghat district, said he was shocked to read the state's stand that "the petitioner is mentally imbalanced" and narrated the sequence of events leading to filing of the PIL in the HC in 2010.

Samrite said he was called to Delhi in 2010 "to meet the other senior leaders, who were in Delhi as the Parliament was in session, where he was apprised about the facts of the serious incident that had been reported from a village in UP and in view of the fact that he had taken up several public causes in the past he was requested to file a writ petition in the nature of PIL in the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench. Thus, the writ petition came to be filed and notice was issued on it."

He said after he filed the appeal against the March 7, 2011, High Court order in the Supreme Court, he was interrogated by the CBI during which he had narrated the entire sequence of events leading to filing of the PIL in HC. "The same should form a part of the status report which the CBI desired to submit before the Supreme Court," he said.

Gandhi in his response to the Supreme Court's notice issued on April 6, 2011, on Samrite's petition, had said: "I emphatically deny the allegation of rape and detention of the writ petitioners by me and say that both these allegations are false, malicious and baseless and no cognizance could be taken by any responsible person of such allegations made on websites."

Gandhi had requested the court to take action against Samrite for filing a vexatious petition to harm his public image and give a political twist to the malicious allegation that that he had kidnapped the girl and her family.

The HC had asked for a CBI probe against Samrite on March 7. The CBI had lodged a case under Indian Penal Code Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 181 (false statement on oath), 211 (false charges to cause injury) and 499-500 (defamation). On Samrite's appeal, the SC had on April 6, 2011, stayed the HC order and issued notice to UP government and Gandhi.

The HC in its March 7 order had said, "We also direct the CBI director to register a case against Kishore Samrite and all other persons who are found involved in the plot, if any, hatched in order to defame Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament from Amethi."


Comments

Add new comment

  • 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
June 22,2020

New Delhi, Jun 22: The Delhi Police Monday urged the Delhi High Court to grant them a day’s more time for seeking instructions on a plea by Jamia student Safoora Zargar, who was pregnant and arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA--, seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, allowed the request after Zargar’s counsel said she has no objection to it and listed the matter for Tuesday.

Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought a day’s time to take instructions on the issue and said it will be in “larger interest” if he is given indulgence.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi also joined Mehta and said they are ready with the arguments on merits of the case but they do not intend to proceed on merits at this stage.

Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Zargar, said the woman is in a delicate state and is in a fairly advanced stage pregnancy and if the police need time to respond to the plea, she be granted interim bail for the time being.

The high court asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to come back with instructions on Tuesday.

The police has also filed a status report in response to the bail plea.

Jamia Coordination Committee member Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged in the high court the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.

The hearing in the high court also witnessed exchange of words between Mehta, Lekhi on one side and Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra who objected the appearance of the two senior law officers on behalf of Delhi Police in the case.

Mehra contended that unlike another North East Delhi violence matter in which requisite approval was sought by the Delhi Police to be represented by a team of lawyers led by the Solicitor General, no such procedure was followed in this case.

"They know that my view in such cases will be more humanitarian and not as per their whims and fancies. I am not supposed to be the mouth piece of the Delhi Police, I am an officer of the court," he said.

Lekhi shot back "a client chooses the lawyer and a lawyer cannot impose himself on the client.

He said this controversy would deviate the court from the issue in hand and Mehra's objection can be kept aside in this case.

The high court concluded the hearing, asking the counsel for Delhi Police to sort out their battles by tomorrow.

 The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima facie evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.

The trial court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.

The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.

It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.

Comments

Add new comment

  • 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
June 30,2020

New Delhi, Jun 30: The Home Ministry on Monday issued guidelines for 'Unlock 2.0' phase across country between July 1 and July 31. The report stated that COVID-19 lockdown shall continue to remain in force in containment zones till July 31. In containment zones, only essential activities to be allowed. The government's guidelines come on a day when Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu extended lockdowns in their respective states to July 31.

Unlock 2.0 Guidelines:

•   Schools, colleges, educational institutes wil remain closed till July 31. Online/distance learning shall continue to be permitted and shall be encouraged

•   Lockdown shall continue to remain in force in containment zones till July 31st.  In containment zones, only essential activities to be allowed.

•   Night Curfew shall continue to remain in force, between 10:00 pm and 5:00 am, except for essential activities and other relaxations.

•   Social/ political/ sports/ entertainment/ academic/ cultural/ religious functions and other large congregations remain prohibited.

•   International air travel, except as allowed by MHA, will also remain barred.

•   Shops depending upon their area, can have more than 5 persons at a time. However, they have to maintain adequate physical distance.

•   Training institutions of the central and state governments will be allowed to function with effect from July 15 and SOP in this regard will be issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.

Meanwhile, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla wrote to Chief Secretaries of all states and UTs, urging them to ensure compliance of Unlock 2 guidelines and direct all concerned authorities for their strict implementation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • 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
March 30,2020

Thiruvananthapuram, Mar 30: The Kerala chapter of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has said that the state government's decision to sell alcohol to those with a prescription from doctors for having withdrawal symptoms is not a scientific one.

"Scientific treatment should be given to those who have alcohol withdrawal symptoms. It can be treated at home or in hospitals with medicines. It is not scientifically acceptable to offer alcohol to such people instead," a statement by IMA said.
The IMA said that they have taken the matter up with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

The association said that the doctors have no legal obligation to provide a prescription for alcohol.

"Writing a liquor prescription can result in the cancellation of the right to treatment. We have brought it to the notice of Chief Minister," it added.

IMA state president Dr Abraham Varghese and state secretary Dr Gopi Kumar said that scientific treatments are good for those with withdrawal symptoms and added that if other methods are adopted it will only complicate matters.

Kerala government had earlier said that it was considering the option of online sale of liquor in the state to those with a prescription from doctors.

The decision had come in the backdrop of a country-wide lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

Comments

Add new comment

  • 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.