Alwar lynching: Cops give clean chit to 6 miscreants named by victim Pehlu Khan

Agencies
September 14, 2017

New Delhi, Sept 14: The Rajasthan police has given a clean chit to the six people who were named by Pehlu Khan as being responsible for his lynching, according to media reports.

In April, Pehlu Khan was brutally beaten up by cow vigilantes in Rajasthan's Alwar district and died in a hospital where he was admitted for treatment. Khan and four others were injured when a mob attacked nearly 15 persons hailing from Haryana, while transporting cows in vehicles on the Behror highway in Alwar district. As many as 16 people were allegedly transporting 36 bovine animals illegally in six pick up vans.

Before dying, Khan made a statement to the police in which he named Hukum Chand, Navin Sharma, Jagmal Yadav, Om Prakash, Sudheer and Rahul Saini as those who had attacked him. On Thursday however, Alwar Superintendent of Police Rahul Prakash said that the reward announced on each of the accused was withdrawn as the investigation had found them not guilty.

Prakash said, "We have withdrawn the reward against the six persons after an investigation by CB-CID into their role." Rajasthan CB-CID has been investigating the case ever since it was transferred to them from Alwar police in July.

The statements of witnesses in the case including policemen and the employees of the Rath Gaushala indicate that none of the accused was present at the time of the attack. Call record details of the six people along with Base Transceiver Station (BTS) location of mobiles further support this.... Based on the findings of the investigating officer, it is hereby recommended that the names of the six accused be removed from the case as they have been found not guilty."

Further reported that the case will continue against nine other people whom the police identified from the video of the attack that was circulated on social media.

Police sources said that there was no corroborative evidence to prove that the six men given clean chit were part of the group which had attacked Pehlu Khan as the video evidence did not show them. Cellphone GPS data also shows that they were not at the spot where the attack took place.

Khan's son Irshad Khan said that "the 6 people let off were present there when my father was murdered. Rajasthan police not doing a good job.

The development was also met by outrage in civil rights groups as People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) — who spearheaded a campaign for getting justice to the victims — said that the police were protecting the accused. "The CID-CB is under direct control of the Home Minister. Its blatant bias is very obvious," said PUCL president Kavita Srivastava.

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Thursday, 14 Sep 2017

Insha Allah, Allah will punish them infront of every one.

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.
Agencies
August 1,2020

New Delhi, Aug 1: Rajya Sabha MP and former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh has died in Singapore where he was undergoing treatment.

Amar Singh, 64, had undergone kidney transplant in 2011 and was not keeping well for a long time.

“Saddened to know about the death of senior leader and parliamentarian Amar Singh,” Defence Minister Rajnath Singh tweeted.

Earlier in the day, the former Samajwadi leader had posted messages on Twitter, paying tributes to Bal Gangadhar Tilak on his 100th death anniversary and also wishing people on Eid.

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.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

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.
Agencies
March 6,2020

Mumbai, Mar 6; The Indian equity indices slumped on Friday morning, with the BSE Sensex falling over 1,450 points

The slump across the sectoral indices was led by the finance and banking stocks as the Reserve Bank of India on Thursday superseded the board of directors of Yes Bank and placed it under moratorium.

Persistent fears of the coronavirus outbreak severely impacting global economy also weighed on the investor sentiments, analysts said.

At 9.36 a.m., the BSE Sensex trimmed some losses and was trading at 37,376.66, lower by 1,093.95 points or 2.84 per cent from the previous close of 38,470.61

So far, the index has touched an intra-day low of 37,011.09, falling by 1,459.52 points.

It had opened at the intra-day high of 37,613.96.

The Nifty50 on the National Stock Exchange was trading at 10,938.75, lower by 330.25 or 2.93 per cent from its previous close.

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.