This document summarizes four criminal petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding individuals arrested for their involvement in violent protests in Mangaluru, Karnataka in December 2019 against the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens. The petitions seek bail for the individuals who have been charged with serious offenses like attempted murder and destruction of public property. The State opposes bail, arguing that the individuals conspired in the violence and there is risk they may engage in further illegal activities if released. The Court is considering whether to grant bail to the individuals.
Gauhati HC checks legality of ED summons to Assam newspapersabrangsabrang
This order summarizes and addresses a writ petition filed by Jayanta Baruah challenging two notices issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation summoning him to appear as a witness in an ongoing investigation. The court notes the petitioner's objections to the notices and details provided about restrictions on movement in Assam. While the notices were issued under a provision allowing for summons of witnesses, the court finds issues with the short notice periods provided, lack of information on what testimony is sought and from what documents, and timing of the notices in the context of petitioner's journalism work. The court orders the prayer regarding one notice to be disregarded as not pressed, and reserves orders on the other prayers.
This document summarizes several connected criminal appeal cases being heard together in the High Court of Kerala. The cases involve appeals of convictions from a lower court related to crimes against children under the POCSO Act. The State of Kerala has appealed, arguing for guilt in some cases while victims have appealed arguing for stronger penalties in other cases. The High Court document records the appeals were heard together on November 13, 2020 and the court's judgment will be delivered on January 6, 2021.
These petitions were filed in the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash several FIRs registered in Tumkur district against various foreign nationals for alleged violations of the Foreigners Act. The FIRs were registered by the Thilak Park police station in Tumkur based on complaints filed against the petitioners for participating in religious activities while being in India on a tourist visa. The petitions argued that the FIRs should be quashed as no cognizable offense was made out in the complaints. The court heard petitions from over 15 foreign nationals seeking to quash the FIRs.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
Gauhati HC checks legality of ED summons to Assam newspapersabrangsabrang
This order summarizes and addresses a writ petition filed by Jayanta Baruah challenging two notices issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation summoning him to appear as a witness in an ongoing investigation. The court notes the petitioner's objections to the notices and details provided about restrictions on movement in Assam. While the notices were issued under a provision allowing for summons of witnesses, the court finds issues with the short notice periods provided, lack of information on what testimony is sought and from what documents, and timing of the notices in the context of petitioner's journalism work. The court orders the prayer regarding one notice to be disregarded as not pressed, and reserves orders on the other prayers.
This document summarizes several connected criminal appeal cases being heard together in the High Court of Kerala. The cases involve appeals of convictions from a lower court related to crimes against children under the POCSO Act. The State of Kerala has appealed, arguing for guilt in some cases while victims have appealed arguing for stronger penalties in other cases. The High Court document records the appeals were heard together on November 13, 2020 and the court's judgment will be delivered on January 6, 2021.
These petitions were filed in the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash several FIRs registered in Tumkur district against various foreign nationals for alleged violations of the Foreigners Act. The FIRs were registered by the Thilak Park police station in Tumkur based on complaints filed against the petitioners for participating in religious activities while being in India on a tourist visa. The petitions argued that the FIRs should be quashed as no cognizable offense was made out in the complaints. The court heard petitions from over 15 foreign nationals seeking to quash the FIRs.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
The appellant appealed against an order rejecting his application for temporary bail to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. The court heard the appeal and considered additional information provided in an affidavit. While the original reason for seeking temporary bail no longer applied due to time passed, the court found humanitarian grounds to grant temporary bail for the appellant to attend rituals and a condolence meeting for his mother scheduled on the anniversary of her death. The court ordered the appellant's release on temporary bail from August 13-21, 2021 subject to furnishing a bond and sureties, and reporting to police.
This document summarizes three bail petitions filed by foreign nationals who were arrested for violating visa rules and lockdown regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners argue they are entitled to bail as the investigation is still ongoing and final reports have not been filed within the statutory period. While the prosecution contends the petitioners should be detained in a special camp if bail is granted, the court notes the facilities in the proposed camp may not be adequate. The court ultimately grants bail to the petitioners on their own bonds.
1) The petitioner had previously been declared not a foreigner by the Foreigners' Tribunal in an earlier case in 2013.
2) A subsequent case proceeded against the petitioner in 2017 and declared her a foreigner.
3) On reviewing both cases, the court found the only differences were minor discrepancies in names, but that it was clear both cases referred to the same person.
4) As the petitioner had already been declared not a foreigner in the earlier 2013 case, the subsequent 2017 case violated the principle of res judicata. The court therefore allowed the petition and declared the petitioner an Indian citizen.
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner who entered India after 1971. She provided 11 documents to prove her citizenship but the Tribunal found flaws. It noted discrepancies in names in voter lists from different villages and years. Certificates from village heads were inadmissible without examining authors. Land records did not prove inheritance from parents before 1971. Witnesses could not establish linkage to parents. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's opinion, finding no infirmity in its appreciation of evidence and fulfillment of principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
This order concerns bail applications in two criminal cases (Mis. Cr. Case Nos. 2206/2021 and 2213/2021) arising from a common order by a Sessions Judge denying bail. The cases relate to a comedy show organized on January 1, 2021 during which allegedly objectionable remarks were made against Hindu deities and a political leader, hurting religious sentiments. The prosecution claims video evidence supports the allegations. The applicants claim the allegations are false and the content did not intend to hurt sentiments. After considering the facts and arguments from both sides, the Court reserves its order.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Bhupender Tomar @ Pinki Chaudhary, who has been charged under several sections of the IPC and other acts related to organizing an inflammatory protest. The defense argues that the accused left the protest site before inflammatory slogans were raised and is no longer required for interrogation. Additionally, several main co-accused have already been granted bail. Considering the accused also left the protest early and is not required for further questioning, the court grants bail to the accused on parity with one of the co-accused, with conditions that he not contact witnesses and remain in the country.
The petitioner Danish Alvi Thanvi filed a habeas corpus petition seeking recovery of his minor son Saad from the illegal detention of his ex-wife Mst. Norren Qaisar (Respondent No. 7). The petitioner and respondent were married for 13 years and had one son Saad who was born in 2010 and suffers from ADHD. In 2016, the respondent removed Saad from the petitioner's home and custody without permission. The petitioner has not seen his son since December 2016 despite efforts. The petition contends that the respondent's detention of Saad is illegal and against the child's welfare, who requires continued treatment for his medical condition. The petitioner requests the court to direct the police to recover Saad and hand over
This document contains provisional lists of admissions to the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro for the 2016/2017 academic year. It includes the application number and name of candidates admitted to various part-time National Diploma programs, including Accountancy, Banking and Finance, Business Administration, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Marketing, Mechanical Engineering, Office Technology and Management, and Public Administration. A total of over 200 candidates were provisionally admitted across the 10 programs listed.
This document summarizes two writ petitions related to incidents of alleged sacrilege and subsequent protests in Faridkot, Punjab in 2015. It provides background on three alleged incidents of sacrilege and the FIRs registered. It notes the petitions only relate to a protest in Kotkapura where police fired on protesters, injuring some. The petitions seek to quash a subsequent FIR from 2018 relating to this incident and requests the investigation be transferred to the CBI.
The document summarizes a court case in India. It discusses the charges filed against three applicants - a husband (Applicant 1) and his brother and sister-in-law (Applicants 2 and 3). The complainant is the wife of Applicant 1. She alleged harassment and cruelty by the applicants after marriage, including demands for dowry. The court upheld the charge of cruelty/dowry demand against all three applicants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it removed the charges of rape and unnatural sex against the husband, citing exceptions for marital rape in Indian law. It said sexual acts between a husband and wife do not constitute rape or unnatural sex offenses. The charge of unnatural
The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an inter-caste marriage. It details that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar and Komal Parmar applied to marry under the Special Marriage Act but Komal's family strongly opposed the marriage due to differences in caste. Komal's family detained her to prevent the marriage. The court ordered Komal be produced and she stated her desire to not return to her family due to threats and abuse, but also did not want to marry Sanjeev. The court considered statements and evidence from both families over multiple hearings to make a determination in the case.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their 2-year sentence. While the petitioners argued there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and they never lived with the deceased, the court found materials in the record to show the petitioners induced their son to demand dowry. The court dismissed the petition, noting parents have a responsibility to properly raise their children and cannot escape liability by not living with them, and upheld the conviction given the nature of the offense.
The appellant was charged with abetting another person in the murder of her husband. She claimed trial and was found guilty by the High Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal had to determine if the various charges laid against the appellant by the prosecution were proper. The charges against the appellant had changed multiple times due to objections from the defense and rulings from different judges. The Court of Appeal had to examine this complex procedural history to decide whether the appellant's conviction was valid.
20200512 guj hc order on chudasama election 2017sabrangsabrang
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding an election petition challenging the results of the 2017 Gujarat state assembly election in the 58-Dholka constituency. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the allegations made by the petitioner (candidate who lost the election) against the returning officer and winning candidate. It records the evidence and arguments presented by both sides and provides answers to the issues framed by the court. In the end, it outlines the court's final order in the case.
kerala HC Abdul_Razak_v_National_Investigation_Agency.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document is a court order from the High Court of Kerala regarding three applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The applicants were convicted by a special court for offenses related to being members of the terrorist organization ISIS. While considering the applications, the court examines the facts of the case, convictions and sentences imposed, arguments from both sides, and relevant case law regarding the standards for granting post-conviction bail. The court ultimately denies the applications, finding the applicants did not provide strong compelling reasons as required.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Ramya G. before the court and set her at liberty. Ramya G. was produced before the court and stated that she is currently staying at Mahila Dakshata Samithi pursuant to lodging a complaint with Janodaya Santwana Kendra alleging infringement of her liberty by her parents regarding her marriage to the petitioner. The court noted that an individual has a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice irrespective of religion or caste. Since Ramya G. was produced and stated her willingness to marry the petitioner, the court disposed of the writ petition setting her at liberty and directed the Mahila Dakshata Sam
This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka summarizing a criminal case and petition. It discusses:
1) A complaint was filed alleging the petitioners trespassed a property, picked a quarrel, abused the complainant and threatened him and others with dire consequences.
2) The petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the criminal proceedings. The court analyzed the complaint and statements and found offenses under IPC and SC/ST Act were made out.
3) While some offenses may not apply to all petitioners, there was a joint trial required. The court dismissed the petition, finding ingredients for the charges were present and quashing was not justified. The criminal proceedings against the petition
The appellant appealed against an order rejecting his application for temporary bail to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. The court heard the appeal and considered additional information provided in an affidavit. While the original reason for seeking temporary bail no longer applied due to time passed, the court found humanitarian grounds to grant temporary bail for the appellant to attend rituals and a condolence meeting for his mother scheduled on the anniversary of her death. The court ordered the appellant's release on temporary bail from August 13-21, 2021 subject to furnishing a bond and sureties, and reporting to police.
This document summarizes three bail petitions filed by foreign nationals who were arrested for violating visa rules and lockdown regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners argue they are entitled to bail as the investigation is still ongoing and final reports have not been filed within the statutory period. While the prosecution contends the petitioners should be detained in a special camp if bail is granted, the court notes the facilities in the proposed camp may not be adequate. The court ultimately grants bail to the petitioners on their own bonds.
1) The petitioner had previously been declared not a foreigner by the Foreigners' Tribunal in an earlier case in 2013.
2) A subsequent case proceeded against the petitioner in 2017 and declared her a foreigner.
3) On reviewing both cases, the court found the only differences were minor discrepancies in names, but that it was clear both cases referred to the same person.
4) As the petitioner had already been declared not a foreigner in the earlier 2013 case, the subsequent 2017 case violated the principle of res judicata. The court therefore allowed the petition and declared the petitioner an Indian citizen.
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner who entered India after 1971. She provided 11 documents to prove her citizenship but the Tribunal found flaws. It noted discrepancies in names in voter lists from different villages and years. Certificates from village heads were inadmissible without examining authors. Land records did not prove inheritance from parents before 1971. Witnesses could not establish linkage to parents. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's opinion, finding no infirmity in its appreciation of evidence and fulfillment of principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
This order concerns bail applications in two criminal cases (Mis. Cr. Case Nos. 2206/2021 and 2213/2021) arising from a common order by a Sessions Judge denying bail. The cases relate to a comedy show organized on January 1, 2021 during which allegedly objectionable remarks were made against Hindu deities and a political leader, hurting religious sentiments. The prosecution claims video evidence supports the allegations. The applicants claim the allegations are false and the content did not intend to hurt sentiments. After considering the facts and arguments from both sides, the Court reserves its order.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Bhupender Tomar @ Pinki Chaudhary, who has been charged under several sections of the IPC and other acts related to organizing an inflammatory protest. The defense argues that the accused left the protest site before inflammatory slogans were raised and is no longer required for interrogation. Additionally, several main co-accused have already been granted bail. Considering the accused also left the protest early and is not required for further questioning, the court grants bail to the accused on parity with one of the co-accused, with conditions that he not contact witnesses and remain in the country.
The petitioner Danish Alvi Thanvi filed a habeas corpus petition seeking recovery of his minor son Saad from the illegal detention of his ex-wife Mst. Norren Qaisar (Respondent No. 7). The petitioner and respondent were married for 13 years and had one son Saad who was born in 2010 and suffers from ADHD. In 2016, the respondent removed Saad from the petitioner's home and custody without permission. The petitioner has not seen his son since December 2016 despite efforts. The petition contends that the respondent's detention of Saad is illegal and against the child's welfare, who requires continued treatment for his medical condition. The petitioner requests the court to direct the police to recover Saad and hand over
This document contains provisional lists of admissions to the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro for the 2016/2017 academic year. It includes the application number and name of candidates admitted to various part-time National Diploma programs, including Accountancy, Banking and Finance, Business Administration, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Marketing, Mechanical Engineering, Office Technology and Management, and Public Administration. A total of over 200 candidates were provisionally admitted across the 10 programs listed.
This document summarizes two writ petitions related to incidents of alleged sacrilege and subsequent protests in Faridkot, Punjab in 2015. It provides background on three alleged incidents of sacrilege and the FIRs registered. It notes the petitions only relate to a protest in Kotkapura where police fired on protesters, injuring some. The petitions seek to quash a subsequent FIR from 2018 relating to this incident and requests the investigation be transferred to the CBI.
The document summarizes a court case in India. It discusses the charges filed against three applicants - a husband (Applicant 1) and his brother and sister-in-law (Applicants 2 and 3). The complainant is the wife of Applicant 1. She alleged harassment and cruelty by the applicants after marriage, including demands for dowry. The court upheld the charge of cruelty/dowry demand against all three applicants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it removed the charges of rape and unnatural sex against the husband, citing exceptions for marital rape in Indian law. It said sexual acts between a husband and wife do not constitute rape or unnatural sex offenses. The charge of unnatural
The document summarizes a court case in India regarding an inter-caste marriage. It details that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar and Komal Parmar applied to marry under the Special Marriage Act but Komal's family strongly opposed the marriage due to differences in caste. Komal's family detained her to prevent the marriage. The court ordered Komal be produced and she stated her desire to not return to her family due to threats and abuse, but also did not want to marry Sanjeev. The court considered statements and evidence from both families over multiple hearings to make a determination in the case.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their 2-year sentence. While the petitioners argued there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and they never lived with the deceased, the court found materials in the record to show the petitioners induced their son to demand dowry. The court dismissed the petition, noting parents have a responsibility to properly raise their children and cannot escape liability by not living with them, and upheld the conviction given the nature of the offense.
The appellant was charged with abetting another person in the murder of her husband. She claimed trial and was found guilty by the High Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal had to determine if the various charges laid against the appellant by the prosecution were proper. The charges against the appellant had changed multiple times due to objections from the defense and rulings from different judges. The Court of Appeal had to examine this complex procedural history to decide whether the appellant's conviction was valid.
20200512 guj hc order on chudasama election 2017sabrangsabrang
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding an election petition challenging the results of the 2017 Gujarat state assembly election in the 58-Dholka constituency. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the allegations made by the petitioner (candidate who lost the election) against the returning officer and winning candidate. It records the evidence and arguments presented by both sides and provides answers to the issues framed by the court. In the end, it outlines the court's final order in the case.
kerala HC Abdul_Razak_v_National_Investigation_Agency.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document is a court order from the High Court of Kerala regarding three applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The applicants were convicted by a special court for offenses related to being members of the terrorist organization ISIS. While considering the applications, the court examines the facts of the case, convictions and sentences imposed, arguments from both sides, and relevant case law regarding the standards for granting post-conviction bail. The court ultimately denies the applications, finding the applicants did not provide strong compelling reasons as required.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Ramya G. before the court and set her at liberty. Ramya G. was produced before the court and stated that she is currently staying at Mahila Dakshata Samithi pursuant to lodging a complaint with Janodaya Santwana Kendra alleging infringement of her liberty by her parents regarding her marriage to the petitioner. The court noted that an individual has a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice irrespective of religion or caste. Since Ramya G. was produced and stated her willingness to marry the petitioner, the court disposed of the writ petition setting her at liberty and directed the Mahila Dakshata Sam
This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka summarizing a criminal case and petition. It discusses:
1) A complaint was filed alleging the petitioners trespassed a property, picked a quarrel, abused the complainant and threatened him and others with dire consequences.
2) The petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the criminal proceedings. The court analyzed the complaint and statements and found offenses under IPC and SC/ST Act were made out.
3) While some offenses may not apply to all petitioners, there was a joint trial required. The court dismissed the petition, finding ingredients for the charges were present and quashing was not justified. The criminal proceedings against the petition
പട്ടയം കിട്ടിയ ഭൂമി പതിവ് ഉത്തരവിലെ വ്യവസ്ഥകൾ ലംഖിച്ചു നടത്തുന്ന എല്ലാ പ്രവർത്തികളും നിരോധിച്ചു കൊണ്ടും, പട്ടയം നൽകിയ തഹസിൽദാർക്ക് തന്നെ ടി പട്ടയം റദ്ദ് ചെയ്യാൻ അധികാരം ഉണ്ട് എന്നും വ്യക്തമാക്കി കൊണ്ടു0,
ആയതുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട കേസുകൾ എല്ലാം തീർപ്പാക്കി കൊണ്ടും ഉള്ള 25/5/2022 ലെ ഹൈക്കോടതി chief justice ഉൾപ്പെട്ട ബെഞ്ചിന്റെ ഉത്തരവ് - James Joseph Adhikarathil, Your Land Matter Consultant 9447464502
The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking police protection from the third respondent and his brother who were interfering with her property possession and threatening her. However, the court dismissed the petition stating that there is a pending civil dispute between the petitioner and third respondent regarding the same property. The court noted that the police cannot interfere unless directed by the civil court handling the property dispute case. The petitioner was given liberty to seek appropriate remedies from the lower civil court, including police protection or initiating contempt proceedings.
1) Ashad Ali, Md. Bidya Hussain, and Sahabuddin Munsi have applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under sections 363/366/376(2)(n) of the IPC and sections 6 of the POCSO Act and 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
2) The judge heard from the applicants' counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state.
3) The judge examined the FIR and documents. Considering the facts and circumstances, the judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants subject to furnishing a bond and surety, and appearing before the investigating officer within 2 weeks to record their statements. The
This document summarizes several writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding students' right to wear hijabs in educational institutions. The petitions were filed against state departments of education and colleges by Muslim students seeking a directive allowing them to wear hijabs inside classrooms in accordance with their religious beliefs. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the students as well as the state government respondents. The matters involved questions regarding students' fundamental rights to freedom of religion and education.
This document summarizes several writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding students' right to wear hijabs in educational institutions. The petitions were filed against state departments of education and colleges by Muslim students seeking a directive allowing them to wear hijabs inside classrooms in accordance with their religious beliefs. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the petitioners as well as the respondent state departments and colleges.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their sentence. The court notes that parents often escape liability by claiming they did not live with their son, but still induce him to demand dowry. While the petitioners claimed no possibility of dowry demands since they did not live together, the court found materials in the record to convict the petitioners and upheld their conviction and sentence, dismissing the miscellaneous petition.
KLC panchayaths have no power to utilize the land vested with them - James adhikaram contact your land consultant today Solve your land problems in Kerala - We provide Legal support, assistance and monitoring of your complaints in Bhoomi tharam mattom, pattayam , thandapper , pokkuvaravu , land tax , building tax , digital survey , resurvey ,klc , puramboke , pathway disputes, fair value , data bank , issues . James Joseph Adhikarathil , Former Deputy collector Alappuzha 9447464502. Service available all over Kerala
ജഡ്ജ്മെന്റ് KLC Act Revenue ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കേണ്ട വളരെ ശ്രദ്ധേയമായ ഒരു ഹൈ കോടതി വിധി. Revenue രേഖകളിൽ(BTR) പുറമ്പോക്ക് വഴിയായി രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുള്ള സ്ഥലത്ത് ഒരു കുടുംബം അവരുടെ സ്വന്തമായ ഭൂമിയും കഴിഞ്ഞ് ടി puramobke സ്ഥലവും കൂടി കയ്യേറി വീട് നിർമാണം നടത്തുന്നു. ജില്ലാ കളക്ടർക്ക് പരാതി ലഭിച്ചതിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ കളക്ടർ തഹസിൽദാരോട് ടി കയ്യേറ്റം ഒഴിപ്പിക്കാൻ നിർദേശം നൽകുന്നു. തഹസിൽദാർ KLC നിയമ പ്രകാരമുള്ള നോട്ടീസുകൾ നൽകി കയ്യേറ്റം ഒഴിപ്പിച്ചു. തുടർന്ന് ടി പുറമ്പോക്ക് വഴി ഒരാൾക്ക് മാത്രം ഉപയോഗയ്ക്കുന്നതിനായി നൽകാൻ കഴിയില്ലെന്നും അവർക്ക് മറ്റ് വഴി ഉണ്ടെന്നും ഉള്ള തിനാൽ പഞ്ചായത്ത് കമ്മിറ്റി ടി പുറമ്പോക് വഴിയിൽ അംഗനവാടി തുടങ്ങുന്നതിനു തീരുമാനിച്ചതായി തഹസിൽദാരെ അറിയിക്കുന്നു.എന്നാൽ തഹസിൽദാർ ടി പുറമ്പോക്ക് സ്ഥലo ആയത് പോലെ സംരെക്ഷിക്കൻ അല്ലാതെ പഞ്ചായത്തിന് സ്വന്തം നിലയിൽ മറ്റ് ആവശ്യങ്ങൾക് ഉപയോഗിക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ല എന്ന് പഞ്ചായത്തിനെ അറിയിക്കുകയും കളക്ടർക്ക് റിപ്പോർട്ട് നൽകുകയും ചെയ്തു. തുടർന്ന് ഒഴിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിനു നിർദ്ദേശം നൽകിയ കളക്ടർ മാറുകയും പുതിയതായി വന്ന കളക്ടർ പഞ്ചായത് കമ്മിറ്റിയുടെ തീരുമാനം അംഗീകരിച്ചു കൊടുക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. ആയതിനെതിരെ ഹൈകോടതിയിൽ കേസ് ഫയൽ ചെയ്യുകയും puramboke വഴിയായി BTR ഉൾപ്പടെയുള്ള രേഖകളിൽ ഉള്ള സ്ഥലം പഞ്ചായത്തിന് അത് പോലെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാം എന്നല്ലാതെ മറ്റ് പ്രവർത്തികൾ ചെയ്യാൻ അധികാരം ഇല്ലെന്നും, പഞ്ചായത്തിന് അനുമതി നൽകിയ Trivandrum collectorude നടപടി നിയമ ലംഘനം ആണെന്നും നിരീക്ഷിച്ച കോടതി കളക്ടറുടെ ഉത്തരവ് quash ചെയ്ത് കളയുകയും, തഹസിൽദാർ ചെയ്ത നടപടി ശെരി വെയ്ക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു.
പഞ്ചായത്ത്രാജ്, മുൻസിപ്പൽ, corporation തുടങ്ങിയ ആക്ടുകൾ നിലവിൽ വന്നതിനു ശേഷം കുളം, തോട്, റോഡ് തുടങ്ങിയവ അതത് local self government ന് നൽകിയത് പോലെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാം എന്നല്ലാതെ യാതൊരു വിധ രൂപ ഭേദമോ, നിർമാണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളോ Government ന്റെ prior permission ഇല്ലാതെ ചെയ്യാൻ പാടില്ല എന്ന് ടി നിയമങ്ങളിൽ വ്യക്തമാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.
Vesting with the Panchayat is only
for the purpose of management👆👆👆 uploaded for the Kerala land revenue officers and citizens of kerala by James Joseph Adhikaram, Retd. Deputy Collector, Kottayam, Kerala.Mob- 9447464502. https://www.facebook.com/keralalawsonland/
WPC 9344/2015 - The panchayath has no authority to to use the land vested with them for construction . The Panchayat cannot be permitted to put up any
construction. Vesting with the Panchayat is only
for the purpose of management. The land belongs o
the Government. Unless and until the Government
assign the land to the Panchayat, they cannot put
up any construction in the land.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state government respondents for the death of the minor son/brother of the petitioners, who died due to police firing on September 23, 2021 at their village in Darrang District, Assam. The court issued notice to the respondent state government officials, returnable by December 1, 2021. The petitioners were also directed to serve copies of the writ petition and annexures to the state government advocate by October 26, 2021. The case was listed for further proceedings.
The document is a court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding an application for anticipatory bail filed by four applicants (Lutfor Ali, Rakmat Mollah, Jorina Khatun, and Ikbal Hussain Sikdar) who were apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The court heard from the counsels for the applicants and the state. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, allowing them to be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 each with a local surety of the same amount, but requiring them to appear before the investigating officer within two weeks
20201018 andheri mm court 20 tablighis acquitted(1)sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in Mumbai, India involving 10 individuals from Indonesia who were charged with violating lockdown orders issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution presented evidence from two witnesses, police officers who discovered the individuals at a local mosque on April 5, 2020, allegedly in violation of restrictions. The defense disputed the evidence and cited other court rulings that discharged defendants in similar cases. The judge considered the arguments from both sides to determine if the prosecution had sufficiently proven their case.
This document contains summaries of several writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding students seeking to wear hijabs in educational institutions. The petitions were filed against state departments and educational institutions by students and parents seeking orders to allow wearing of hijabs or to initiate inquiries against institutions for uniform violations. The matters involved arguments from various advocates for the petitioners and respondents.
The applicants are seeking bail in connection with a crime registered for offenses including murder and rioting. The court notes that while the applicants were alleged to have obstructed police from entering a building where victims were confined and beaten, there are no allegations that the applicants were directly involved in the murders. Considering the role attributed to the applicants and that they have no prior criminal history or risk of absconding, the court grants bail to the applicants with conditions that they not interfere with evidence and report weekly to the police station.
This document summarizes a court case in the Karnataka High Court regarding a land dispute between several petitioners and respondents over ownership of 2 acres and 10 guntas of land in Begur Village. The petitioners claimed ownership based on their grandfather and grandmother previously owning portions of the land. The court case involved multiple appeals over several years as the fourth respondent also claimed ownership of portions of the same land. The petitioners filed a writ petition to challenge orders by the Special Tahsildar that directed entering the fourth respondent's name in the land records for the disputed property. The High Court referred several questions to a larger bench regarding the State's powers to adjudicate land disputes and whether certain provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue
The petitioner owns a landed property in Nadama Village comprised of resurvey number 46. After a resurvey, the actual extent of the property was found to be 11.56 acres rather than the previously recorded 8.39 acres. However, the petitioner is only being charged basic tax on 8.39 acres. Relying on reports from the Village Officer and puramboke register, the petitioner argued the entire 11.56 acres should be recognized as her property. The court directed the revenue authorities to accept basic tax on the full 11.56 acres and update relevant records accordingly.
20211103 gauhati hc order in rehab for assam evicted familiessabrangsabrang
The Gauhati High Court is hearing two PIL cases (PIL No. 65/2021 and PIL (Suo Moto) No. 6/2021) related to eviction and rehabilitation of alleged encroachers in Sipajhar, Assam. The Advocate General of Assam has been granted one week's time to file a detailed counter affidavit in the cases. The petitioner has been given three weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. No coercive measures are currently being taken against the remaining alleged encroachers as efforts are being made to convince them to move voluntarily. The cases have been listed for further hearing on December 14, 2021.
Similar to Deliberate attempt by Mangalore police to cover up excesses: Karnataka HC (20)
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptxOmGod1
This PowerPoint presentation, titled "Capital Punishment in India: Constitutionality and Rarest of Rare Principle," is a comprehensive exploration of the death penalty within the Indian criminal justice system. Authored by Saif Javed, an LL.M student specializing in Criminal Law and Criminology at Kazi Nazrul University, the presentation delves into the constitutional aspects and ethical debates surrounding capital punishment. It examines key legal provisions, significant case laws, and the specific categories of offenders excluded from the death penalty. The presentation also discusses recent recommendations by the Law Commission of India regarding the gradual abolishment of capital punishment, except for terrorism-related offenses. This detailed analysis aims to foster informed discussions on the future of the death penalty in India.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Pedal to the Court Understanding Your Rights after a Cycling Collision.pdfSunsetWestLegalGroup
The immediate step is an intelligent choice; don’t procrastinate. In the aftermath of the crash, taking care of yourself and taking quick steps can help you protect yourself from significant injuries. Make sure that you have collected the essential data and information.
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaintsseoglobal20
Our company bridges the gap between registered users and experienced advocates, offering a user-friendly online platform for seamless interaction. This platform empowers users to voice their grievances, particularly regarding online consumer issues. We streamline support by utilizing our team of expert advocates to provide consultancy services and initiate appropriate legal actions.
Our Online Consumer Legal Forum offers comprehensive guidance to individuals and businesses facing consumer complaints. With a dedicated team, round-the-clock support, and efficient complaint management, we are the preferred solution for addressing consumer grievances.
Our intuitive online interface allows individuals to register complaints, seek legal advice, and pursue justice conveniently. Users can submit complaints via mobile devices and send legal notices to companies directly through our portal.
The presentation deals with the concept of Right to Default Bail laid down under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 187 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Deliberate attempt by Mangalore police to cover up excesses: Karnataka HC
1. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH
DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.776 OF 2020
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.778 OF 2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.860 OF 2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.957 OF 2020
IN CRL.P.776 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1 . ASHIK @ MOHAMMAD ASIK
S/O FAROOQ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.16-4108-14
ASHIQ MANZIL, MASJID ROAD
SHIRVA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-574575
2 . MOHAMMED SUHAL
S/O MAQBUL AHMED
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.MJM 1100
KASABA BENGRE
MANGALURU TALUK-575001
3 . NASEERUDDIN
S/O K MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10113
DEVINAGAR
KUNJATHBAIL, KAVOOR
MANGALURU TALUK-575001
2. 2
4 . MOHAMMED SHAKEER
S/O MOHAMMED NAZEER
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT BANDRIYA NAGAR
KONCHAR, PEJAVARA POST
MANGALURU TLAUK
D K DISTRICT-575001
5 . KALANDAR BASHA
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT KALANDAR BASHA MANZIL,
SHANTHI NAGAR, KAVOOR
MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT-575001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: LETHIF.B., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION
D K DISTRICT
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP-I A/W
SRI: THEJESH.P., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.133/2019 OF
MANGALORE NORTH P.S., D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 188, 353, 332, 324,
427, 307, 120-B, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2A AND 2B OF KARNATAKA
PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981
AND SEC.174 OF CR.P.C.
IN CRL.P.778 OF 2020
3. 3
BETWEEN
1 . MOHAMMAD AZAR
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT K.G.N. HOUSE
NEAR MANJANADY JUNCTION
MANJESHWARA ROAD, MANJANADY
MANGALURU TALUK - 575 201
2 . ABDUL AFEEZ
S/O M A MASOOD
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT JAISOL MANZIL
VIDYANAGAR, KULOOR
PANJIMOGARU
MANGALURU TALUK - 575 201
3 . HARZAN
S/O ABOOBAKKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT 16/54 PALLAMAJALU HOUSE
MONDANKAPU, B.MOODA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 222
4 . MOHAMMED NAZEEM
S/O ABDUL SHARIF
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT 2-78, SUJEER, MARIPALLA
PADU, BANTWALA TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 222
5 . ANWAR HUSSAIN
S/O MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT KODIMAR HOUSE KALAWAR, BAJPE
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
6 . MOHAMMED IQBAL
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4. 4
R/AT 2-93, KEMPU GUDDE KANNURU, ADYAR,
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
7 . KAISAL @ MOHAMMED KAISAL
S/O ABDUL MUNAF
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT ASMA MANZIL C.P.C. COMPOUND KUDROLI
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
8 . JAVED AKTHAR @ BAAS JAVED
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT C.P.C. COMPOUND, KUDROLI
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
9 . MOHAMMED JIYAD
S/O ABBAS
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT FIT NO. 303, URDU SCHOOL
HAIDERALI ROAD, KARBALA KUDROLI,
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
10 . FAYAZ @ MOHAMMED FAYAZ
S/O ADAM BAWA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT BANDHARI PAVILION APARTMENT,
4TH
FLOOR, FLAT NO. 402
KAVOOR, BADRIYA, JUMMA MASJID
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 231
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION
D.K.DISTRICT
5. 5
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP-I A/W
SRI: THEJESH.P., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.133/2019 OF
MANGALORE NORTH P.S., D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 188, 353, 332, 324,
427, 307, 120-B, R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2A AND 2B OF
KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY
ACT 1981 AND SEC.174 OF CR.P.C
IN CRL.P.860 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. ABDUL JALEEL
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT 8-14-1206/1
C P C COMPOUND
KUDROLI
MANGALURU TALUK-575201
D K DISTRICT
2 . SAYED ALI RAHISH
S/O ANWAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT 3-10-754-A- A-1 FLAT
NEAR MOHAMADIN MASEEDI
KASABA BAZAR, KUDROLI
MANGALURU TALUK-57501
D K DISTRICT
3 . MOHAMMED FAROOK
S/O S IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 2-38/18
BORUGUDDE HOUSE KANNUR
6. 6
MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT-575004
4 . MOHAMMED SHAKIR @ KANNA SHAKIR
S/O HAMEED @ KUNTA HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT D NO.2-168/2
SADATH MANZEL, GANADABETTU
NEAR ABUBAKKAR HOTEL
KANNURU, MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT-575009
5 . THANZIL
S/O U A RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT 14-76-8
HALEKOTE, MULLIGUDDE
ULLALA, MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT-575205
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:LETHIF.B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION,
D K DISTRICT
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP-I A/W
SRI: THEJESH.P., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.133/2019 MANGALURU
NORTH P.S., D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
143,147,148,188,353,332,324,427,307,120B R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 2(A)(B) OF KPDLP ACT.
7. 7
IN CRL.P.957 OF 2020
BETWEEN
MOHAMMED MARWAN
S/O AHAMED KHADER
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.16-80
NEAR DARKHASTH MASJID
SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT
PIN-574 575
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION
D K DISTRICT
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP-I A/W
SRI: THEJESH.P., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.237/2019 OF
MANGALURU SOUTH P.S., D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 333, 307,
427, 324, 326, 188 AND 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2A OF KARNATAKA
PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
8. 8
O R D E R
Petitioners in the above cases are arrested and remanded
to judicial custody on the charge of being members of unlawful
assembly armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to
North Police Station, Mangaluru and obstructing the police from
discharging their duties and causing damage to public property
etc., in violation of the prohibitory order imposed by the
Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, under section 144 Cr.P.C.
from 9.00 p.m. on 18.12.2019 till 12.00 midnight of 20.12.2019.
The cases have been registered against the petitioners in
Crime No.133/2019 in North Police Station, Mangaluru under
sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 353, 332, 324, 427, 307, 120B
r/w.149 of IPC, 1860 and section 2(A) of the Karnataka
Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981 and
section 174 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.237/2019 in South Police
Station, Mangaluru under sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 333,
307, 427, 324, 326, 188 and 149 of IPC, 1860 and section 2(A)
9. 9
of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property
Act, 1981.
2. The applications filed by the petitioners for their
release on bail have been rejected by the I Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.
3(i) In Criminal Petition No.776 of 2020, petitioners are
arrayed as accused Nos.5, 13, 11, 14 and 10 respectively in
Crime No.133/2019. Petitioner No.1 was arrested on
20.12.2019, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 were arrested on 26.12.2019
and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were arrested on 29.12.2019.
3(ii) In Criminal Petition No.778 of 2020, petitioners are
arrayed as accused Nos.1, 8, 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, 19, 20 and 9
respectively in Crime No.133/2019. Petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6
were arrested on 20.12.2019, petitioner Nos.7, 8 and 9 were
arrested on 29.12.2019 and petitioner No.10 was arrested on
25.12.2019.
3(iii) In Criminal Petition No.860 of 2020, petitioners are
arrayed as accused Nos.15, 16, 12, 18 and 2 in Crime
10. 10
No.133/2019. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 were arrested on
29.12.2019, petitioner No.3 was arrested on 26.12.2019 and
petitioner No.5 was arrested on 20.12.2019.
3(iv) In Criminal Petition No.957 of 2020, petitioner is
arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.237/2019 and was arrested
on 20.12.2019.
4. Petitioners contend that they have been falsely
implicated in the alleged offences without there being specific
evidence of their presence at the spot of occurrence. The
allegations constituting the ingredients of offences are not
forthcoming in the remand application or in the complaint.
Petitioners are doing different activities and business in the city
of Mangaluru and some of the petitioners had come to the city
for treatment and purchase of household articles and they were
not members of any organization. The respondent Police
themselves fired from their service weapons and killed two
innocent public and injured several other individuals during the
occurrence. The police have not registered even a single case on
11. 11
the complaints filed by the injured and relatives of the dead
persons and thus the petitioners seek their release on bail.
5. Learned SPP-I appearing for respondent has filed
detailed statement of objections, opposing grant of bail inter alia
contending that the petitioners and other accused persons
conspired to create disturbance opposing Citizenship
(Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens. (“CAA” and
“NRC” for short) and on 19.12.2019, despite prohibitory order
being in force, petitioners were holding in their hands sticks,
jellistones, soda bottles and glass pieces and hurled sticks and
stones at the police station and were found placing pipe pieces,
drums, pull carts, old iron gates across east side Azizuddin road
and on the road leading to Bombay Hotel on the south side and
stacking tyres and burning the same and thereby obstructed the
traffic movements and throwing burning tyres at a seized lorry
bearing No.GJ.12.O.8131 parked within the police station
compound. The involvement of the petitioners is evident from
the CCTV footage procured from the place of occurrence and
vicinity. The petitioners are guilty of making attempt to murder
12. 12
police personnel and causing destruction of public property.
Under the said circumstances, in the event of release of the
petitioners on bail, there is likelihood that they might again
engage in acts of disturbing public peace. Further it is stated
that the petitioners are active workers of PFI(Popular Front of
India), a Muslim Organization and if the petitioners are released
on bail, there is likelihood of continuing their illegal activities and
waging war against the laws of the State and the Nation and
there is possibility of committing grave offences like
sedition/treason by joining hands with the Organization.
6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and
learned SPP-I appearing for the respondent/State.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo
along with copies of 31 FIRs and copies of photos of injured
victims, deceased and police and copies of complaints filed by
the injured and family members of the deceased against the
police along with details of 31 cases and would submit that in
respect of the very same occurrence, police have refused to
register FIRs on the complaints lodged by the victims and family
13. 13
members of the deceased who died due to police firing. Learned
counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
1. SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
AND ANOTHER, 2020 SCC Online SC 98
2. STATE THROUGH SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM vs. SAJJAN
KUMAR, 2018 SCC Online Del 7350
3. ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE. REP BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY vs STATE OF A.P. AND ANR, 2008 Crl.L.J.
402
4. PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES & ANR. vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS, Criminal Appeal No.1255/1999 and
connected cases decided on 23.09.2014
5. LALITA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS, (2014) 2 SCC 1
6. STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU vs. M.R. HIREMETH, (2019) 7 SCC 515
7. STATE OF TELANGANA vs. MANAGIPET ALIAS MANGIPET
SARVESHWAR REDDY, 2019 SCC Online SC 1559
8. PRAHLADBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL & Another vs. THE STATE OF
GUJARAT, Criminal Appeal No.196/2018 decided on 28.01.2020
8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar
and have also perused the case records produced by SPP-I.
The history of bail has been retraced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a recent case, decided on 29.01.2020, in the
14. 14
context of section 438 of Cr.P.C., in SUSHILA AGARVAL vs.
STATE NCT OF Delhi, 2020 SCC Online SC 98 in SLP (Criminal)
Nos.7281-7282/2017. Para 75 of the said judgment is worth
extracting. It reads thus:-
75. The concept of bail, i.e., preserving the
liberty of citizen-even accused of committing
offences, but subject to conditions, dates back
of antiquity. Justinian I in the collections of
laws and interpretations which prevailed in his
times, Codex Justinianus (or ‘Code Jus’) in Book
9 titled Title 3(2) stipulated that “no accused
person shall under any circumstances, be
confined in prison before he is convicted”. The
second example of norm of the distant past is
the Magna Carta which by clause 44 enacted
that “people who live outside the forest need not
in future appear before the Royal Justices of the
forest in answer to the general summons unless
they are actually involved in proceedings or are
sureties for someone who has been seized for a
forest offence. “Clear Parliamentary recognition
of bail took shape in later enactments in the UK
through the Habeas Corpus Act 1677 and the
English Bill of Rights, 1689 which prescribed
that “excessive bail ought not to be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted”.
15. 15
In para 135 of the said judgment, in conclusion, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed thus:
135. The history of our republic- and indeed,
the freedom movement has shown how the
likelihood of arbitrary arrest and indefinite
detention and the lack of safeguards played an
important role in rallying the people to demand
independence. Witness the Rowlatt Act, the
nationwide protests against it, the Jallianwalla
Bagh massacre and several other incidents,
where the general public were exercising their
right to protest but were brutally suppressed
and eventually jailed for long. The spectre of
arbitrary and heavy-handed arrests; too often,
to harass and humiliate citizens, and oftentimes,
at the interest of powerful individuals (and not
to further any meaningful investigation into
offences) led to the enactment of Section 438.
Despite several Law commission reports and
recommendations of several committees and
commissions, arbitrary and groundless arrests
continue as a pervasive phenomenon.
Parliament has not thought it appropriate to
curtail the power or discretion of the courts, in
granting pre-arrest or anticipatory bail,
especially regarding the duration, or till charge
16. 16
sheet is filed, or in serious crimes. Therefore, it
would not be in the larger interests of society if
the court, by judicial interpretation, limits the
exercise of that power; the danger of such an
judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of that
power; the danger of such an exercise would be
that in fractions, little by little, the discretion,
advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a very
narrow and unrecognizably tiny portion, thus
frustrating the objective behind the provision,
which has stood the test of time, these 46
years.
9. In the instant case, FIRs in Crime No.133/2019 and
Crime No.237/2019 are registered on the allegations that the
petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly consisting of
1500-2000 Muslim youth and that they conspired together to set
fire to the police station and cause destruction to the public
properties and that they were armed with sticks, stones and
soda bottles etc.
10. In an offence involving large number of accused,
identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with
reasonable certainty. In the present cases, a perusal of the case
17. 17
records produced by the learned SPP-I indicate that the identity
of the accused involved in the alleged incident appear to have
been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being
members of Muslim community. Though it is stated that the
involvement of the petitioners is captured in the CCTV footage
and photographs, no such material is produced before this Court
showing the presence of any one of the petitioners at the spot
armed with deadly weapons. In the statement of objections, it is
stated that there was a hint as to holding of protest by the
Muslim youth on 19.12.2019, opposing implementation of CAA
by the Central Government and in that connection, the
Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru had imposed prohibitory
order under section 144 Cr.P.C. from 9.00 p.m. on 18.12.2019
till 12.00 midnight of 20.12.2019. This assertion indicates that
common object of the assembly was to oppose the
implementation of CAA and NRC which by itself is not an
“unlawful object” within the meaning of section 141 of IPC.
11. The material collected by the Investigating Agency
does not contain any specific evidence as to the presence of any
18. 18
one of the petitioners at the spot; on the other hand, omnibus
allegations are made against the Muslim crowd of 1500 – 2000,
alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda
bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by learned
SPP-I depict that hardly any member of the crowd were armed
with weapons except one of them holding a bottle. In none of
these photographs, police station or policemen are seen in the
vicinity. On the other hand, photographs produced by the
petitioners disclose that the policemen themselves were pelting
stones on the crowd. That apart, petitioners have produced
copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the
deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement
made thereon reveal that eventhough the law required the police
to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint
made against the police officers making out cognizable offences,
the respondent police have failed to register FIRs which would go
to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police
excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and
caprice of the police. Overzealousness of the police is also
evident from the fact that FIRs are registered under section 307
19. 19
IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves. In the
wake of the counter allegations made against the police and in
the backdrop of the failure of the police to register the FIRs
based on the complaints lodged by the victims, the possibility of
false and mistaken implication cannot be ruled out.
12. In the above circumstances, it would be travesty of
justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties
to the mercy of the District Administration and the police. The
records indicate that deliberate attempt has been made to
trump-up evidence and to deprive the liberties of petitioners by
fabricating evidence. It is not disputed that none of the
petitioners have any criminal antecedents. The allegations
levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect the
petitioners with the alleged offences. Investigation appears to
be mala fide and partisan. In the said circumstances, in order to
protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary
to admit them to bail. Hence the following:-
20. 20
ORDER
1. Criminal Petition No.776 of 2020 is allowed.
a) Petitioner Nos.1 to 5/ accused No.5 – Sri.Ashik
@ Mohammad Asik, accused No.13 –
Sri.Mohammed Suhal, accused No.11 –
Naseeruddin, accused No.14 - Mohammed
Shakeer and accused No.10 – Sri. Kalandar
Basha respectively are ordered to be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties
each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional court.
b) They shall appear before the court as and when
required.
c) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution
witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) They shall not get involved in similar offences.
e) They shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
21. 21
2. Criminal Petition No.778 of 2020 is allowed.
a) Petitioner Nos.1 to 10/accused No.1 -
Mohammad Azar, accused No.8 – Sri.Abdul Afeez,
accused No.3 – Sri.Harzan, accused No.4 –
Sri.Mohammed Nazeem, accused No.6 – Sri.Anwar
Hussain, accused No.7 – Sri.Mohammed Iqbal,
accused No.17 – Sri.Kaisal @ Mohammed Kaisal,
accused No.19 – Sri.Javed Akthar @ Baas Javed,
accused No.20 – Sri.Mohammed Jiyad and accused
No.9 – Sri.Fayaz @ Mohammed Fayaz respectively
are ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing
bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
b) They shall appear before the court as and when
required.
c) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution
witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) They shall not get involved in similar offences.
e) They shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
22. 22
3. Criminal Petition No.860 of 2020 is allowed.
a) Petitioner Nos.1 to 5/accused No.15 –
Sri.Abdul Jaleel, accused No.16 – Sri.Sayed Ali
Rahish, accused No.12 – Sri.Mohammed Farook,
accused No.18 – Sri.Mohammed Shakir @ Kanna
Shakir, accused No.2 – Sri.Thanzil respectively are
ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond in
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
each with two sureties each for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
b) They shall appear before the court as and when
required.
c) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution
witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) They shall not get involved in similar offences.
e) They shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
4. Criminal Petition No.957 of 2020 is allowed.
a) Petitioner/accused No.1 – Sri.Mohammed
Marwan is ordered to be enlarged on bail on
23. 23
furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional court.
b) He shall appear before the court as and when
required.
c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution
witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) He shall not get involved in similar offences.
e) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss