PM Modi meets Suu Kyi, discusses India-Myanmar relations

New Delhi, Jan 15: A Delhi court on Wednesday granted bail to Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad in connection with the Daryaganj violence case.

The court has ordered him not to hold any protest in Delhi till February 16th.

While hearing the case, the Judge had asked Azad's counsel to read out some of his social media posts.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Azad, had on Tuesday said that the petitioner was sent to jail without any evidence in connection with anti-CAA protests in Delhi's Darya Ganj area last year.

"I think the court's comments should become a precedent for the country. The Public Prosecutor at the behest of police tried to make this a communal issue. We told the court that the government has a problem with Azad because he made the CAA-NPR-NRC an issue for everyone. 
The Court also sought evidence," Pracha told ANI after Delhi's Tis Hazari court deferred the bail plea of Azad till today.

On Wednesday, the court pulled up the Delhi Police for failing to show any evidence against Azad.

Azad was arrested on December 21 last year after he led a march from Jama Masjid against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. He was sent to judicial custody till January 18 at Tihar jail.

The Bhim Army chief was charged with rioting, unlawful assembly and inciting the mob to indulge in violence after vandalism in Delhi's Daryaganj area.

Srinagar, Jun 9: Suspended Jammu and Kashmir DSP Davinder Singh, who was nabbed while ferrying two Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists on the Srinagar-Jammu Highway, moved a Delhi court on Tuesday seeking interim bail.

Besides Singh, two other accused -- Syed Naveed Mushtaq and Imran Shafi Mir -- have also sought bail. The Special Cell of the Delhi Police is probing their role in the alleged planning of a terror attack.

The trio has sought bail asserting that there is no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy to commit an act that would threaten the sovereignty of the country. The court has listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday.

"The accused are wrongly and falsely implicated in the case. There is also no material to substantiate that the accused had the intention or conspired to carry out a terror strike," the plea stated.

Singh is currently under judicial custody at the Hira Nagar Jail in J&K till June 16. Besides Singh, three other accused -- Javed Iqbal, Syed Naveed Mushtaq and Imran Shafi Mir -- are also under custody.

Delhi Police's Special Cell had brought him from Hira Nagar Jail to the national capital in March for interrogation in another case.

The police had earlier told the court that Mushtaq, who was the commander of Hizbul Mujahiddeen in Shopian district, along with other militants were planning to execute a terror attack in Delhi and other parts of the country and targeted killings of protected persons.

In connection with this, the Delhi Police had filed an FIR which stated that the youth of Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab are being trained for carrying out terrorist activities. Singh was taken into custody under this FIR and was also interrogated regarding the Khalistan angle.

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.