Tag: #JudicialCustody

On Friday, a hearing on plea on habeas corpus filed by Gulfisha Fatima, an accused of offences under UAPA, was adjourned which sought release from Judicial custody by Delhi HC. It was adjourned by a division bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Asha Menon. It is adjourned to July 5, instead of the court being burdened with heavy load and lack of time for the said plea. The plea will be looked into by the roster bench after vacation.

Fatima was charged under various sections of UAPA for being involved in the riots that happened in North East Delhi from 22.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. She is also accused that she was part of a larger conspiracy behind inciting the Northeast Delhi Riots that took place in February 2020. Fatima also involved Natasha Narwa, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal who were released from Tihar jail on Thursday by the bail order by Delhi HC on 15 June’20. They are allegedly the masterminds of the conspiracy of the North-East Delhi violence in Feb2020, they are accused of wanting to disturb law and order to National Capital as a reaction to the Citizenship Amendment Act enacted last year.

The Supreme Court of Friday issued a notice in an appeal filed by Delhi Police which challenged the verdict of HC. It said that the impugned judgment shall not be relied on as a precedent by any of the parties before any court. “It is clarified that release of the respondents (Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita & Natasha Narwal) at this stage not interfered with,” it added.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

Actor Pearl V Puri who is been accused of raping a five-year child has been granted bail on Tuesday from Judicial custody. Earlier his bail plea was rejected by the Vasai court.

Peral V puri is an actor who has done various Ekta Kappors shows. He is accused of raping a minor girl back in 2019 on the sets of Bepanah Pyaar. The victim is his co-actor Ekta Sharma’s daughter. The victim’s father alleged charges on him for raping his minor when the victim herself told his father that the actor had touched her private parts. So on 4th June 2021, Puri was arrested for 14 days of judicial Custody. After which he applied for bail.

The charges which are levied are Section 376 AB of IPC which says Whoever, except in the cases provided for in subsection (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not the less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. And Section 4,8,12, 19 21 of POCSO Act the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is enacted with the main objective of protecting children from various kinds of sexual abuses and offences.

The hearing for bail application has been held thrice in session court of Vasai and on Tuesday Judge Aditi Kadm Granted him bail on a cash surety of Rs. 25,000/-.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, on last Friday, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Azam Khan, the prominent leader of the Samajwadi Party and the Member of Parliament from his party. His motion was dismissed in kin with the unlawful appointment of more than one thousand clerks, stenographers, and engineers in the Jal Nigam of Uttar Pradesh, as he was the prime accused behind this unlawful act during his term as a minister in the SP government’s rule in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Petitioner’s Contention

The learned counsel of the applicant moved an application under section 438 of CrPC, i.e.- anticipatory bail, to avail some sort of relief from the Hon’ble High Court, on the account of being arrest arrested, and further taken into judicial custody in kin with the Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, charged under section 409, 420, 120-B, 201 and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, Police Station SIT of Lucknow District. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant also contended that mereloy6 serving the jail authorities with B-warrant and communicating the same to the accused, nowhere signifies that the applicant has been retained in custody and hence the bail application under section 438 of the CrPC is maintainable. The learned counsel even argued, that even if the issuance of B-warrant has been done and communicated to the accused, yet the accused is entitled to bail as the charge sheet concerning this case was filed after the prescribed period of Ninety Days, by the investigation team.

Respondent’s Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the state, contended that the F.I.R. was filed on 25.04.2018 on the grounds of the inquiry set up by the Special Investigating Team U.P., Lucknow regarding the felonies of biased enrichment, the disappearance of documents and destroying them, so that it cannot be laid as a piece of evidence against the criminal conspiracy of conspiring 1300 people on the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Clerk, and Stenographer.

It was further perceptible that the present F.I.R. was lodged against the other four by the conducting Investigation Officer. While the applicant was taken into custody concerning another case with F.I.R. No. 980 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur, an F.I.R. No. 392 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur and put in District Jail, Sitapur. There is sheer evidence of a B-warrant issued by the court, which was received by the Jail Authorities and communicated the same to the applicant within a day. The facts and figured were laid down. Given all the facts and analysis, the applicant is considered to be in custody concerning the current F.I.R. No. 2 of 2018 and issued B-Warrant issued by the competent court under the provisions of Section 267(1) CrPC.

The Court’s Order

The division bench of Hon’ble High Court, headed by Justice Rajeev Singh, reject the motion of filing the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Azam Khan, and observed while doing, that the accused is already under detention and a B-warrant has been issued against him by the competent court under the section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and has also been duly communicated to him. The Court further highlighted the fact that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused on the grounds of preliminary investigation, carried forward by the SIT, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The accused was held liable for the unlawful appointment of more than a thousand engineers, clerks, and stenographers giving them unjust enrichment, doing forgery, conspiracy, and destroying pieces of evidence for the same. The court also stated that “It is also evident that B-warrant was issued by the competent court on 18.11.2020 was received by the Jail Authorities of District Jail Sitapur who communicated the same to the applicant on 19.11.2020”. The division bench of the court also took into consideration, the case of Bobby (Paramveer) and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which they highlighted the key feature that while the Criminal Court issues the B-warrant, it has to satisfy the fact that the issuance of the same is just and proper. The issuance of the same means that the accused is already under detention. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the application moved by the accused, Azam Khan under section 438 of the CrPC is not maintainable, yet the court opened a way for the accused to move under regular bail if he so desires.

On May 23, Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler, and a decorated sportsman were arrested for the murder of Sagar Rana. The wrestler has been placed in judicial custody and is facing charges of murder, abduction, and criminal conspiracy.

Advocate Pradeep Rana, the counsel of the renowned wrestler, pleaded with the court seeking dietary supplements and special food for the wrestler. He further averred that the accused has won several laurels for the country and still wishes to continue his career in wrestling the alleged false accusation should not result at the end of his wrestling career.

On 9th June, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Satvir Singh Lamba observed that all the necessities of the accused were being met as per the provisions of Delhi Prison Rule, 2018 and that the supplements were only the desires of the accused and are not in any manner a necessity.

The court also stated that the desire of the accused tantamount to discrimination against other prisoners. It was further contended that allowing a plea of such kind may invite a flood of applications from more prisoners.

The court ultimately observed that “It is well-settled law that all the persons, whether natural or juristic are equal in the eyes of law irrespective of their caste, religion, sex, class, etc. The right to equality is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It implies the rule of law. It also implies an absence of any special privilege in any person due to his rank, status, whether rich or poor, etc. The law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.”

-Report by Anuj Dhar