Ravi Poojary threatens to kill Tanveer Sait, demands Rs 10 crore ransom

New Delhi, Jan 28: The Supreme Court of India today granted bail to 17 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in 2002 Gujarat massacre case, pending their appeal before the Supreme Court.

The convicts also have to participate in social and spiritual services, said the court, announcing the riders for bail.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant directed for the convicts to be segregated into two groups to be sent to Indore and Jabalpur.

District legal authorities in Indore and Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh have been asked to ensure that the convicts do the spiritual and social work the court has asked for.

The Supreme Court has also asked the administration to find them work for livelihood. The state legal services authority has been asked to file a compliance report as also report on their conduct.

The case concerns the mass killing of 33 innocent Muslims - mostly women and children - who were burnt alive at Sardarpura village in March 2002.

This was part of the mass massacre that swept through Gujarat in the aftermath of the death of train passengers on Sabarmati Express in Godhra on Feb 27, 2002. Thousands of innocent Muslims were killed and raped in the three-day violence. The victims include hundreds of children including newborns.

In 2016, the Gujarat High Court had upheld the conviction of 17 accused in the Sardarpura massacre case.

Earlier, a Special SIT court had convicted a total of 31 persons in the case, after three years of trial against 73 persons from Sardarpura and nearby villages.

New Delhi, Jul 25: Nearly a year after Cafe Coffee Day founder V.G. Siddhartha's death, the probe committee appointed by the Board of Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd (CDEL) has given a virtual clean chit to private equity investors and the Income Tax Department who were named in his last letter.
The investigation report noted that Siddhartha may have felt "aversive behavioural stimulus" due to persistent reminders from the PE investors and other lenders.

"However, such reminders and follow-ups by the PE investors and lenders are not something which are beyond normal industry practices and we believe that PE investors were acting as per accepted legal and business norms," said that report.

It further said that the investigators were not provided with any documentary evidence to show any "advertent or inadvertent harassment" from the Income Tax Department.

It however, said that the financial records suggest a serious liquidity crunch which may have arisen due to the attachment of Mindtree shares by the IT Department.

Further, the probe revealed that MACEL, a private firm of Siddhartha, owes Rs 2,693 crore to Coffee Day Enterprises, which the report says, "needs to be addressed".

The Cafe Coffee Day founder's body was fished out of the Netravathi river in Karnataka by a group of fishermen on July 31 last year, a day after he went missing.

His last note raised several questions about the role of investors, and tax officials.

He had written: "Tremendous pressure from other lenders lead to me succumbing to the situation. There was a lot of harassment from the previous DG Income Tax in the form of attaching our shares on two separate occasions to block our Mindtree deal and then taking possession of our Coffee Day shares, although the revised returns have been filed by us. This was very unfair and has led to a serious liquidity crunch."

The massive shock to the industry and the country also led the government to assure that tax officials would not harass businessmen and the situation would improve.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.