Over 20 states in power crisis as 3 grids collapse

Ahmedabad, Jul 5: A woman police sub-inspector (PSI) with Ahmedabad Police was arrested and sent to three-day police remand, on Saturday, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 20 lakh from an Ahmedabad-based businessman — accused in two rape cases — in exchange for not applying a stringent act against him.

According to police officials, Shweta Jadeja, PSI and incharge of Mahila police station (West) in the city, was arrested by a team of Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) officials in Ahmedabad on Friday after the complainant in the case, the rape accused, approached the Crime Branch and stated that Jadeja had allegedly demanded Rs 35 lakh form him, in exchange for not booking him under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act.

The PASA Act in Gujarat gives power to the police to detain an accused and send them to a prison away from their native district. The complainant claimed that he already paid Rs 20 lakh of the total amount to Jadeja on February 3.

On Saturday, a sessions court awarded Jadeja a three-day remand with the Crime Branch, which will end at 11:30 am on July 7. Following this, the PSI will undergo a medical check-up and be presented before the magistrate again.

“We had originally demanded a seven-day remand. The accused officer has been sent to three-day remand for further investigation in the case,” said a senior police official in Ahmedabad.

According to police, complainant Kenal Shah — managing director of GSP Crop Science Private Limited, a crop solution-based company in Ahmedabad — is allegedly facing two separate rape cases under IPC section 376.

PSI Jadeja was first entrusted with the investigation of a rape case against Shah in January this year, lodged at Mahila police station (West).

The rape case complaint is of 2019. Another rape case against Shah was being probed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes Against Women), Mini Josef, wherein the investigation was reportedly completed.

As per the remand application report filed by the police, Jadeja had allegedly threatened Shah through his brother Bhavesh Shah — a joint managing director at GSP Crop Science Private Limited — and initially demanded Rs 25 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against the accused. The bribe amount was then settled at Rs 20 lakh and in February, the accused allegedly paid the amount via an office accountant to one Jayubha, allegedly a representative of Jadeja, from a finance office in Jamjodhpur area of Ahmedabad.

The report further stated that after the initial amount was paid, a third complaint was allegedly made against Kenal by a security officer at his office, Yograjsinh, for criminal intimidation. After the third complaint, PSI Jadeja had contacted Bhavesh again and demanded an additional sum of Rs 15 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against Kenal. The complaint from the security officer was not converted into an FIR and Shah has not been jailed yet.

However, It was after the demand of Rs 15 lakh that complainant Kenal approached the Crime Branch on June 27. An FIR was lodged against Jadeja at Ahmedabad DCB police station under sections seven and twelve of the Prevention of Corruption Act, charging her for “public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act”.

“Now that we have received the remand of the accused officer from the court, we will try to trace and recover the alleged Rs 20 lakh amount she received in this case,” said Deepan Bhadran, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

Shweta Jadeja is a PSI of the 2016-’17 batch and a resident of Vastrapur in Ahmedabad, while her native place is in Keshod of Junagadh district. The police have not recovered the bribe amount she allegedly accepted as of late Saturday.

Bhopal, May 20: Two months after Deepak Bundele, an advocate and former journalist, was brutally assaulted by the Madhya Pradesh’s Betul Police on March 23, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Kotwali Police Station in Betul district, BS Patel, approached the victim to record his statement. However, he allegedly tried to convince Bundele to withdraw the case saying that the cops had mistaken him for a Muslim since he has a long beard and assaulted him. But, the cop added, they were ashamed of the incident after they came to know that they had beaten their ‘Hindu brother’.
Bundele was on his way to the government hospital for diabetes treatment, a day before the countrywide lockdown was announced, when the assault occurred. Miffed with the incident and after the district police denied to register the case, he wrote to the State Human Rights Commission; Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court; Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan; Vivek Johri, Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh; and SP Betul to register an FIR against the police officials and take punitive action against them.
In the wake of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, section 144 had been imposed in Betul district and public movement was restricted when the incident had occurred. 
Talking to Bundele, ASI Patel had said, “We seek an apology on behalf of those officials [who assaulted Bundele]. We are truly embarrassed because of the incident. If you want, I can bring those officials and make them apologise in person to you. They mistook you as a Muslim and assaulted you, since you had a long beard. And the man (who assaulted you) is a kattar (staunch) Hindu…In Hindu-Muslim riots whenever a Muslim is arrested, they beat them up brutally, always,” the police official can be heard saying in an audio recording shared by the victim.
In the 14 minutes long audio, he further said, “I request to you to withdraw the complaint. Please agree to our request; understand that we are living in Gandhi’s country; we are all Gandhi’s children…I have at least 50 friends from your caste.”
The cop continued, “All those people are ashamed that they did something like this to a Hindu brother without knowing his identity. We do not have any enmity against you. Whenever there is a Hindu-Muslim riot, police always supports the Hindus; even Muslims know this. But whatever happened with you was because of ignorance. For that, I have no words.” 
Refuting ASI Patel’s claim, Bundele claimed that there was no Hindu-Muslim riot that day, and asked whether he was beaten for being wrongly identified as a Muslim. The police officials agreed, and said: “Yes, exactly.”
“When I constantly declined to withdraw the compliant, he indirectly threatened me saying, ‘Agree to our request, else you and your advocate brother will face consequences’,” Bundele claimed. 
When contacted Betul SP DS Bhadoriya said, “I’m not aware of this audio clip. I will taken strict action, if I receive any such complain.”
Bundele said that he has written to the DGP and other senior police officials with details about the incident.   
THE ASSAULT
On March 23 evening, when Bundele was on his way to a hospital for the treatment, Betul Police allegedly thrashed him. The 32-year-old advocate had worked as a journalist for various dailies in Madhya Pradesh’s state capital for a decade. He moved to Betul in 2017 and started practising in the district court with his brother. “I have been a patient of diabetes and blood pressure for the last 15 years. On March 23, since I was not feeling well, I decided to visit the hospital and get some medicines. But I was stopped by the police midway,” Bundele had said. 
Even though the advocate, who sports a beard, said that he explained to police personnel that he had to get his medicines but one of them slapped him without trying to listen to what he was saying. “When I protested and said that police have no right to beat the public, they got anxious and within no time, many police officials came and started beating me up with sticks,” he added. 
"I need constant medication and lifesaving medicines to survive and I told the policemen everything while they were assaulting me. But, they kept hitting me, even after I fell,” he said, adding, "I bled for almost a 2-3 days after the incident.”
Bundele, sustained multiple injuries and his ear bled for almost two days after the incident, but, Betul police denied to file an FIR in the incident.
‘WILL MOVE TO THE HIGH COURT’
“Even after two months of the incident, no FIR has been registered and it seems that police is trying to sweep the matter under the carpet,” Bundele said, adding, “I have talked to the Supreme Court’s veteran advocate Vivek Tankha and Etasham Hashmi and will take this matter to the court.”
He also raised serious concerns about the communal angle of the incident, saying, “It’s a matter of grave concern that the police is turning communal and targeting a particular community.”

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.thewire.in/article/communalism/madhya-pr…

New Delhi, Feb 17: The Supreme Court said on Monday that people have a fundamental right to protest against a law but the blocking of public roads is a matter of concern and there has to be a balancing factor.

Hearing pleas over the road blocks due to the ongoing protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said its concern is about what will happen if people start protesting on roads.

Democracy works on expressing views but there are lines and boundaries for it, the bench said.

It asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran to talk to Shaheen Bagh protestors and persuade them to move to an alternative site where no public place is blocked.

The matter has been posted for next hearing on February 24.

People have a fundamental right to protest but the thing which is troubling us is the blocking of public roads, the bench said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Shaheen Bagh protestors should not be given a message that every institution is on its knees trying to persuade them on this issue.

The apex court said that if nothing works, we will leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.

Protestors have made their made their point and the protests have gone on for quite some time, it said.

Restrictions have been imposed on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and the Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15 last year due to the protests against CAA and Register of Citizens.

The top court had earlier said the anti-CAA protesters at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh cannot block public roads and create inconvenience for others.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the Delhi high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15.

While dealing with Sahni's plea, the high court had asked local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order.

Separately, former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg has filed a petition in the apex court seeking directions to the authorities to remove the protestors from Shaheen Bagh.

One of the pleas has sought laying down of comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protests or agitations leading to obstruction of public place.

In his plea, Garg has said that law enforcement machinery was being "held hostage to the whims and fancies of the protesters" who have blocked vehicular and pedestrian movement from the road connecting Delhi to Noida.

State has the duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen who were continuously being harassed by the blockage of arterial road, it said.

"It is disappointing that the state machinery is muted and a silent spectator to hooliganism and vandalism of the protesters who are threatening the existential efficacy of the democracy and the rule of law and had already taken the law and order situation in their own hand," the plea had said.

In his appeal, Sahni had sought supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

Sahni has said in his plea that protests in Shaheen Bagh has inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set a wrong precedent.