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.
20211201 bombay hc bail to sudha bharadwajsabrangsabrang
1. The applicant Sudha Bharadwaj filed a bail application challenging the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge K.D. Vadane on November 26, 2018 extending her detention and February 21, 2019 taking cognizance of offenses.
2. The applicant argued that Judge Vadane lacked jurisdiction as he was not designated as a Special Judge under the NIA Act to try offenses investigated by the NIA. Only Special Courts constituted by the state government had jurisdiction in such cases.
3. Therefore, the applicant claimed the detention extension and cognizance orders passed by the judge without jurisdiction were null and void, and that she was entitled to default bail.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
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
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The document appears to be a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding two criminal appeals (Crl.A.Nos.705 & 706 of 2020) challenging a lower court's order granting bail to two respondents (Allan Shuaib and Thwaha Fasal) accused of terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the respondents for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court heard arguments from the NIA and the respondents' lawyers regarding whether the lower court properly analyzed evidence and applied legal standards in granting bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1. This document summarizes a court case involving a writ petition filed by two lesbian petitioners (S. Sushma and U. Seema Agarval) seeking police protection from their parents.
2. The petitioners had fled from Madurai to Chennai to escape pressure and opposition from their parents regarding their lesbian relationship. Their parents had filed missing person reports with the police.
3. The court held in-camera hearings and counseling sessions with the petitioners and their parents to better understand the situation. It was found that the petitioners were clear about their relationship, while the parents were concerned about societal stigma and their daughters' safety.
The document discusses guidelines for handling cases involving illegal immigrants in India. It notes that illegal immigrants who commit crimes can be charged under the Foreigners Act and other laws. When granting bail in such cases, courts must consider procedures for investigation, trial, and deportation. The guidelines state that illegal immigrants should be detained in holding centers until deportation, with special protections for women and children. Overall, the document aims to balance enforcing immigration laws with upholding human rights and due process.
20211201 bombay hc bail to sudha bharadwajsabrangsabrang
1. The applicant Sudha Bharadwaj filed a bail application challenging the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge K.D. Vadane on November 26, 2018 extending her detention and February 21, 2019 taking cognizance of offenses.
2. The applicant argued that Judge Vadane lacked jurisdiction as he was not designated as a Special Judge under the NIA Act to try offenses investigated by the NIA. Only Special Courts constituted by the state government had jurisdiction in such cases.
3. Therefore, the applicant claimed the detention extension and cognizance orders passed by the judge without jurisdiction were null and void, and that she was entitled to default bail.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
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
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
The document appears to be a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding two criminal appeals (Crl.A.Nos.705 & 706 of 2020) challenging a lower court's order granting bail to two respondents (Allan Shuaib and Thwaha Fasal) accused of terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the respondents for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court heard arguments from the NIA and the respondents' lawyers regarding whether the lower court properly analyzed evidence and applied legal standards in granting bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1. This document summarizes a court case involving a writ petition filed by two lesbian petitioners (S. Sushma and U. Seema Agarval) seeking police protection from their parents.
2. The petitioners had fled from Madurai to Chennai to escape pressure and opposition from their parents regarding their lesbian relationship. Their parents had filed missing person reports with the police.
3. The court held in-camera hearings and counseling sessions with the petitioners and their parents to better understand the situation. It was found that the petitioners were clear about their relationship, while the parents were concerned about societal stigma and their daughters' safety.
The document discusses guidelines for handling cases involving illegal immigrants in India. It notes that illegal immigrants who commit crimes can be charged under the Foreigners Act and other laws. When granting bail in such cases, courts must consider procedures for investigation, trial, and deportation. The guidelines state that illegal immigrants should be detained in holding centers until deportation, with special protections for women and children. Overall, the document aims to balance enforcing immigration laws with upholding human rights and due process.
This document is a court order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding a writ petition filed by the petitioner Santhosh. The petitioner's younger brother Ramesh was taken into police custody and found dead the next day, with the police claiming it was suicide. The petitioner alleged Ramesh was tortured by police and died as a result. The court ordered a second autopsy, which was conducted. The court then directed that the investigation be transferred from the local police to the CBCID due to allegations against the local police. The court also issued directions for strict compliance in cases of custodial deaths, such as requiring video recording of full autopsies adhering to established forensic standards.
The document summarizes a court case involving 8 applicants from Myanmar who are facing criminal charges. The applicants arrived in India on tourist visas in March 2020 and informed authorities of their activities and locations. They are charged with violating their visa conditions by engaging in religious preaching, violating lockdown orders by residing together, and potentially spreading Covid-19. The court must determine if the charges against the applicants are valid based on the evidence and their visa conditions. Both sides present arguments, with the applicants claiming their activities were permitted and known to authorities, while the state argues the applicants engaged in prohibited religious preaching.
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including adherence to visa terms and regular reporting. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to facilitate the applicants' participation in their trial and discuss their cases with Bangladesh to possibly decide the matter without trial.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
Madras hc bail denied jayraj benicks sept 17sabrangsabrang
The document is a court order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding bail petitions filed by S. Sridhar, who is accused no. 4 in two cases being investigated by the CBI regarding the custodial deaths of Benniks and his father Jeyaraj in Sathankulam police station. The court order denies bail to the petitioner, noting that prima facie evidence indicates he was present at the police station and instigated subordinates to torture the deceased, and that releasing him could influence witnesses and tamper with the investigation as it is still ongoing.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
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.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
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.
1. The applicant Dhananjay Desai, founder of Hindu Rashtra Sena, is seeking bail in a 2014 case where he is accused of inciting hatred and violence against Muslims through inflammatory speeches.
2. His earlier bail application was rejected due to the nature of accusations against him and the inflammatory content of his speeches.
3. The court is now granting him bail based on the undertakings given that he will withdraw his applications staying the trial, refrain from any political or organizational activities related to Hindu Rashtra Sena until the trial's conclusion, and not give any public speeches.
This document summarizes three criminal writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court regarding FIRs registered against petitioners in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra during the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitions involve foreign nationals from various countries who were found participating in religious gatherings in mosques in violation of lockdown orders. The police allege they were spreading religion beyond the scope of their tourist visas, while the petitioners claim they were legally in India to experience culture and observe religious practices. The court heard final arguments from both sides to determine if the FIRs and charges should be quashed.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding a writ of habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Rasidaben, filed the petition seeking production of her son Amir, who was allegedly illegally detained by the Special Operations Group (SOG). The court held hearings where Amir was produced via videoconference. The SOG suspected Amir of being an undocumented Bangladeshi national, but his mother provided documents like his Aadhaar card. The court ordered verification of the documents and directed that Amir be properly cared for. It also ordered production of his school records. The judgment then discusses further hearings and verification processes regarding Amir's nationality and detention.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
The court document discusses suspending the sentence of the appellant Babu Lal, who had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for offenses under the POCSO Act and IPC against his daughter. While the appellant has served over 7 years of his sentence, his appeal case was not likely to be heard soon. The court decides to suspend the appellant's remaining sentence subject to several conditions to prevent contact with his wife and daughter.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a case regarding a petition challenging an order of detention under the National Security Act. The key details are:
- The petitioner was detained under the NSA based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases.
- The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked sufficient details and relied on stale cases.
- The court analyzed previous judgments which established that a detention order must demonstrate a likelihood of prejudicial acts and threat to public order, not just criminal behavior.
- The court ultimately set aside the detention order, finding it did not sufficiently demonstrate how the petitioner threatened public order or that normal law was insufficient to address the situation.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Bombay summarizing discussions in multiple petitions regarding COVID-19 conditions in Maharashtra prisons. It notes several deaths of infected inmates and calls for more testing. It requests updates from the state on prisoner populations and facilities. More time is granted to respond while expediting applications for temporary bail. Concerns over inmate communication and bail applications are also addressed.
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 is a court order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding a writ petition filed by the petitioner Santhosh. The petitioner's younger brother Ramesh was taken into police custody and found dead the next day, with the police claiming it was suicide. The petitioner alleged Ramesh was tortured by police and died as a result. The court ordered a second autopsy, which was conducted. The court then directed that the investigation be transferred from the local police to the CBCID due to allegations against the local police. The court also issued directions for strict compliance in cases of custodial deaths, such as requiring video recording of full autopsies adhering to established forensic standards.
The document summarizes a court case involving 8 applicants from Myanmar who are facing criminal charges. The applicants arrived in India on tourist visas in March 2020 and informed authorities of their activities and locations. They are charged with violating their visa conditions by engaging in religious preaching, violating lockdown orders by residing together, and potentially spreading Covid-19. The court must determine if the charges against the applicants are valid based on the evidence and their visa conditions. Both sides present arguments, with the applicants claiming their activities were permitted and known to authorities, while the state argues the applicants engaged in prohibited religious preaching.
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including adherence to visa terms and regular reporting. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to facilitate the applicants' participation in their trial and discuss their cases with Bangladesh to possibly decide the matter without trial.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
Madras hc bail denied jayraj benicks sept 17sabrangsabrang
The document is a court order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding bail petitions filed by S. Sridhar, who is accused no. 4 in two cases being investigated by the CBI regarding the custodial deaths of Benniks and his father Jeyaraj in Sathankulam police station. The court order denies bail to the petitioner, noting that prima facie evidence indicates he was present at the police station and instigated subordinates to torture the deceased, and that releasing him could influence witnesses and tamper with the investigation as it is still ongoing.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
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.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
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.
1. The applicant Dhananjay Desai, founder of Hindu Rashtra Sena, is seeking bail in a 2014 case where he is accused of inciting hatred and violence against Muslims through inflammatory speeches.
2. His earlier bail application was rejected due to the nature of accusations against him and the inflammatory content of his speeches.
3. The court is now granting him bail based on the undertakings given that he will withdraw his applications staying the trial, refrain from any political or organizational activities related to Hindu Rashtra Sena until the trial's conclusion, and not give any public speeches.
This document summarizes three criminal writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court regarding FIRs registered against petitioners in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra during the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitions involve foreign nationals from various countries who were found participating in religious gatherings in mosques in violation of lockdown orders. The police allege they were spreading religion beyond the scope of their tourist visas, while the petitioners claim they were legally in India to experience culture and observe religious practices. The court heard final arguments from both sides to determine if the FIRs and charges should be quashed.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding a writ of habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Rasidaben, filed the petition seeking production of her son Amir, who was allegedly illegally detained by the Special Operations Group (SOG). The court held hearings where Amir was produced via videoconference. The SOG suspected Amir of being an undocumented Bangladeshi national, but his mother provided documents like his Aadhaar card. The court ordered verification of the documents and directed that Amir be properly cared for. It also ordered production of his school records. The judgment then discusses further hearings and verification processes regarding Amir's nationality and detention.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
The court document discusses suspending the sentence of the appellant Babu Lal, who had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for offenses under the POCSO Act and IPC against his daughter. While the appellant has served over 7 years of his sentence, his appeal case was not likely to be heard soon. The court decides to suspend the appellant's remaining sentence subject to several conditions to prevent contact with his wife and daughter.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a case regarding a petition challenging an order of detention under the National Security Act. The key details are:
- The petitioner was detained under the NSA based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases.
- The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked sufficient details and relied on stale cases.
- The court analyzed previous judgments which established that a detention order must demonstrate a likelihood of prejudicial acts and threat to public order, not just criminal behavior.
- The court ultimately set aside the detention order, finding it did not sufficiently demonstrate how the petitioner threatened public order or that normal law was insufficient to address the situation.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Bombay summarizing discussions in multiple petitions regarding COVID-19 conditions in Maharashtra prisons. It notes several deaths of infected inmates and calls for more testing. It requests updates from the state on prisoner populations and facilities. More time is granted to respond while expediting applications for temporary bail. Concerns over inmate communication and bail applications are also addressed.
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.
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
Sofiya khatun foreigner case sci 12.09.2018 1sabrangsabrang
This document is a record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal. It summarizes the following key points:
1. The Court granted leave in the case and had previously directed the State of Assam to inquire about the citizenship status of the petitioner's family members.
2. In response, an affidavit was filed stating that an inquiry found the petitioner's brothers, husband, and parents (whose names appeared in voter lists from 1965-2018) were Indian citizens.
3. However, the State requested to conduct a full inquiry, which the Court permitted. The Court also directed the petitioner be released on bail and report monthly to police until the inquiry is completed.
The document summarizes a court case regarding a complaint filed against individuals who depicted the Indian national flag on a cake at a Christmas celebration event.
1) The complainant felt depicting the flag on a cake that was later cut and consumed amounted to insulting the national flag, which is an offense under Indian law. However, police initially refused to file an FIR.
2) The complainant then filed a petition with a judicial magistrate seeking an order directing police to file an FIR. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint but then improperly reverted to using powers under a different section of criminal law to direct police to investigate.
3) The court hearing the challenge to the magistrate's order found that once cogniz
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to quash an FIR registered against him and others for conducting a peaceful demonstration against the CAA and NRC amendments. While there was prima facie evidence for an FIR, the court noted that no untoward incidents occurred during the peaceful protest. Since continued prosecution was not warranted given the lack of violence, the court quashed the FIR to secure the ends of justice, with the benefit also applying to the non-petitioning accused mentioned in the FIR.
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
- The petitioner, Nuzhat Perween, is seeking a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her son Dr. Kafeel Khan, who has been detained under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Aligarh.
- Dr. Kafeel Khan addressed a gathering of protesting students at Aligarh Muslim University on December 12, 2019 regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act, after which a criminal case was registered against him for promoting enmity and disturbing public order. He was later arrested and granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aligarh on February 10, 2020.
- Despite the bail order, Dr. Kafeel Khan was not released from jail.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition to quash an FIR registered against him for conducting a peaceful protest against the CAA and NRC amendments. While the court acknowledged that there were grounds to register the FIR for public nuisance and traffic interference, it ruled that continuing the prosecution was not warranted since no violence or untoward incidents occurred. Noting that peaceful protests had been seen across India against the amendments, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition, with the benefit also applying to other non-petitioning accused in the case.
Wp vernon gonsalves and anr vs state of maharashtra & ors.sabrangsabrang
This document is a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, who are currently detained in Taloja Central Prison. It summarizes that an inmate who was in close contact with the petitioners has tested positive for COVID-19, putting the petitioners' health and safety at high risk as they are senior citizens. It requests the court to conduct COVID tests for the petitioners and make appropriate medical arrangements given the circumstances. The petition provides background details on the events leading to the petitioners' detention, their credentials, the charges against them, and the authorities involved in the matter.
The petitioner filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court notes that the complainant and petitioner have settled the matter amicably. While the court acknowledges the settlement, it directs the petitioner to perform one month of community service at a de-addiction center. The petitioner is also fined Rs. 100,000 to be paid to various organizations. The court disposes of the petition after these directions, warning the petitioner not to engage in such behavior again.
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring him a foreigner. The Tribunal had rejected key evidence like voter lists showing the petitioner (Exhibits 6-7), finding inconsistencies. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's appreciation of Exhibits 6-7 to be perverse, as Tribunals have relaxed evidentiary standards compared to courts. The opinion was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of Exhibits 6-7. The petitioner was also ordered to be produced before the Tribunal on a date for a bail application to be considered, with the proceeding to conclude within 60 days.
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Aarif @ Mota, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and murder. The prosecution argues that Aarif was part of an unlawful assembly that killed Zakir during communal riots on February 25, 2020. However, the defense argues that it is unlikely a Muslim boy would have joined a riotous mob consisting mainly of Hindus. The eyewitnesses did not clearly describe Aarif's role, and video footage does not show him. As the applicant's involvement in the unlawful assembly and murder is unclear, the court finds that he should be granted bail.
Bk cr pc complete application with annexuressabrangsabrang
This document is an application filed in the High Court of Delhi seeking early hearing of a writ petition and urgent directions related to arrests made in cases arising from violence in North East Delhi in February 2020. It notes that arrests have continued during the COVID-19 lockdown period based on MHA directions, and that proper legal procedures and protections for arrestees are even more important now given limited access to courts and lawyers. It cites several news reports of arrests made without notice or compliance with legal requirements regarding arrest memos and lists of arrested persons. The application seeks early hearing and compliance with arrest procedures to protect the rights of those arrested.
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.
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.
Similar to Madras hc tablighi bail order june 12 (20)
Donate to charity during this holiday seasonSERUDS INDIA
For people who have money and are philanthropic, there are infinite opportunities to gift a needy person or child a Merry Christmas. Even if you are living on a shoestring budget, you will be surprised at how much you can do.
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-to-donate-to-charity-during-this-holiday-season/
#charityforchildren, #donateforchildren, #donateclothesforchildren, #donatebooksforchildren, #donatetoysforchildren, #sponsorforchildren, #sponsorclothesforchildren, #sponsorbooksforchildren, #sponsortoysforchildren, #seruds, #kurnool
Combined Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Vessel List.Christina Parmionova
The best available, up-to-date information on all fishing and related vessels that appear on the illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing vessel lists published by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and related organisations. The aim of the site is to improve the effectiveness of the original IUU lists as a tool for a wide variety of stakeholders to better understand and combat illegal fishing and broader fisheries crime.
To date, the following regional organisations maintain or share lists of vessels that have been found to carry out or support IUU fishing within their own or adjacent convention areas and/or species of competence:
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC)
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
The Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List merges all these sources into one list that provides a single reference point to identify whether a vessel is currently IUU listed. Vessels that have been IUU listed in the past and subsequently delisted (for example because of a change in ownership, or because the vessel is no longer in service) are also retained on the site, so that the site contains a full historic record of IUU listed fishing vessels.
Unlike the IUU lists published on individual RFMO websites, which may update vessel details infrequently or not at all, the Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List is kept up to date with the best available information regarding changes to vessel identity, flag state, ownership, location, and operations.
About Potato, The scientific name of the plant is Solanum tuberosum (L).Christina Parmionova
The potato is a starchy root vegetable native to the Americas that is consumed as a staple food in many parts of the world. Potatoes are tubers of the plant Solanum tuberosum, a perennial in the nightshade family Solanaceae. Wild potato species can be found from the southern United States to southern Chile
Synopsis (short abstract) In December 2023, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 30 May as the International Day of Potato.
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance CenterThis Is Reno
Property appraisals completed in May for downtown Reno’s Community Assistance and Triage Centers (CAC) reveal that repairing the buildings to bring them back into service would cost an estimated $10.1 million—nearly four times the amount previously reported by city staff.
Food safety, prepare for the unexpected - So what can be done in order to be ready to address food safety, food Consumers, food producers and manufacturers, food transporters, food businesses, food retailers can ...
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
2024: The FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 40
Madras hc tablighi bail order june 12
1. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Reserved on – 11.06.2020
Pronounced on – 12.06.2020
PRESENT
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CRL OP(MD)Nos.5769, 6018 & 6103 of 2020
in Crl OP(MD)No.5769 of 2020 :
1.Md Kameual Islam, S/o Abdul Kalai,
Bangladesh.
2.Md Tanvir Raihan, S/o Aminul Haqde
Bangladesh.
3.Md Monir Hasan, S/o Islam
Bangladesh.
4.Md Solaiman, S/o Amied,
Bangladesh.
5.Md Abdul Haleque, S/o Ardhed Ali
Bangladesh.
6.Md Kamal Bapary, S/o Habib Bapary
Bangladesh.
7.Md Abdul Rajjak, S/o Jafar Ali
Bangladesh.
8.Md Mokter Ali, S/o Sadek Moral
Bangladesh.
9.Md Robi Gazi, S/o Omar Ali Gazi,
Bangladesh.
10.Md A.K.Shamsul Hooque, S/o Arsed Ali, Bangladesh.
11.Md Sheen Mahud, S/o A.M.Alan,
Bangladesh.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11
Vs.
1/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
2. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
1.The State, rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town South Police Station,
Dindigul District.
In Crime No.234 of 2020).
...1st
Respondent/Complainant
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India,
New Delhi. ...2nd
Respondent/2nd
Respondent
(The 2nd
respondent is suo motu impleaded
in these proceedings by order dated 10.06.2020)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No. 234 of 2020 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul
District.
in Crl OP(MD)No.6018 of 2020 :
1.Zailani, S/o.Poniman,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253560.
2. Siti Rohana, W/o.Zailani,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253527.
3.Ramalan Bin Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253150.
4.Aman Jahariah, W/o.Ramalan Jahariah,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253887.
5.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim, S/o.Ibrahim,
Indonesia.Passport No.B4590114.
6.Kamariah, W/o.Mohamed Nasir Ibrahim,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4249962.
7.Mariono, S/o.Misrin,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253517
8.Sumisni, W/o.Mariono,
Indonesia, Passport No.C4253516.
... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 8
Vs.
2/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
1.The State, rep.by
the Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.188 of 2020)
...1st
Respondent/Complainant
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India,
New Delhi. ...2nd
Respondent/2nd
Respondent
(The 2nd
respondent is suo motu impleaded
in these proceedings by order dated 10.06.2020)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.188 of 2020 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram
District.
in Crl OP(MD)No.6103 of 2020 :
1.Mokhamad Sobiyil Arkham, S/o.Chudhori,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C2009386.
2.Rudianto, S/o.Dariadi,
Indonesia, P.P.No.B7461433.
3.Triono, S/o.Katiman,
Indonesia, P.P.No.B8743282.
4.Rianto, S/o.Munjari,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C6110799.
5.Santoso, S/o.Tean,
Indonesia, P.P.No.B9229942.
6.Iskandar Rasyid, S/o.Rasyidsalen,
Indonesia, P.P.No.B7461423.
7.Syafis, S/o.Saman,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C9756617.
8.Agus Junaidi, S/o.Sokesh,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C5189263.
9.Agus Salim Firdaus, S/o.Firdaus,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C4487959.
3/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
4. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
10.Husen Ali Muharram, S/o.Larakedu,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C4673019.
11.Ismandi Saleh, S/o.Mangudin,
Indonesia, P.P.No.B7832470.
12.Ahamed Basri, S/o.Sabri,
Indonesia, P.P.No.C5356174.
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12
Vs.
1.The State, rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Adiramapattinam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.182 of 2020). ...1st
Respondent/Complainant
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India,
New Delhi. ...2nd
Respondent/2nd
Respondent
(The 2nd
respondent is suo motu impleaded
in these proceedings by order dated 10.06.2020)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.182 of 2020 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur
District.
For petitioners
in Crl OP(MD)Nos.5769 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
& 6018 of 2020 for Mr.J.Sulthan Basha
For petitioner
in Crl OP(MD)No. : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
6103 of 2020 for Mr.A.Raja Mohamed.
For Respondent No.1
in all cases : Mr.A.Natarajan,
State Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.A.Robinson, Govt.Advocate (crl.side)
For Respondent No.2
in all cases : Mr.V.Kathirvelu,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
assisted by Mr.K.Prabhu
4/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
5. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
The run-up :
The petitioners are foreign nationals. They entered India on
tourist visas. The respondent police arrested them on the ground
that they had engaged in religious activities in breach of the visa
conditions. They had also defied the lock down regulations
promulgated by the Government in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic.
Though the petitioners were fully aware that the Government had
ordered closure of all places of worship, they stayed in groups in
various mosques without observing the social distancing rules.
Hence, the jurisdictional police registered FIRs against the
petitioners herein alleging that they had committed offences under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 188, 269,
270, 271 and 278 of IPC, Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897,
Section 58(4), 134, 135 of the Tamil nadu Public Health Act, 1939
and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The
petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While
most of the petitioners are lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, some
of them are in Sub Jail, Saidapet. They now seek bail.
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners :
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compulsive bail as
the final reports have not been filed within the statutory period.
He wanted me to take note of the facts and circumstances of the case
in its entirety and render substantial justice by issuing
appropriate directions.
Objections raised by the respondents :
3.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that as on date
the case against the petitioners is pending at the FIR stage and
that the investigation is still going on. He drew the attention of
this Court to the orders passed by the Government designating the
transit yard of the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as Special Camp
to lodge the foreign nationals who have violated the visa conditions
and committed the offences in question. Therefore, the petitioners
on being granted bail will have to be shifted to the said special
camp. They will have to necessarily stay there till the criminal
prosecution is over or their deportation, whichever is earlier.
4.The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing
for the Central Government also adopted the submissions of the
learned State Public Prosecutor. He drew my attention to the order
dated 19.06.2019 made in Crl.RC Nos.468 & 469 of 2019 which also
concerned foreign nationals and in which directions had been issued
to ensure their presence for facing trial.
5/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
6. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
Facts beyond dispute :
5.The following facts are beyond the pale of controversy :
(a)The petitioners are foreign nationals and they
had arrived in India only on tourist visas.
(b)It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioners had indulged in proselytizing activities.
Their acts have not prejudiced public tranquility.
(c)They have been in prison since 5th
/9th
April of
2020 and more than two months have elapsed.
(d)None of the petitioners tested positive for
Covid-19 and there is absolutely nothing on record to
indicate that they had contributed to the spread of the
novel corona virus.
Consideration of the issues involved :
6.I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the petitioners
are Tablighis even though this has not been expressly conceded.
Tablighi Jamaat has come under severe and harsh criticism for its
reckless and irresponsible conduct and rightly so. There are
accusations that its puritanical and revivalist project prepares the
ground for islamic radicalization. Of course, this narrative has
been contested by quite a few public intellectuals.
7.I must record at this juncture that Prof.Upendra Baxi's
remark in his recent essay on “Exodus Constitutionalism” published
by The India Forum that “there is, also, no such thing as
'migrants' but only persons and groups with distinctively (and often
disturbingly) different needs and abilities...” helped me to see
the petitioners before me as thirty one individuals instead of
collectively thingifying them as “Tablighis”. Categorization can
have serious pitfalls. Justicing has to be an individualized
exercise. There are scores of foreign Tablighis who are presently in
detention. They hail from different countries. Some of them are
women. Quite a few are senior citizens. They are normal human
beings. They are now stuck in alien surroundings. The petitioners
came here propelled by a sense of religious idealism. But their
mission went awry. They are now eager to go back to their families.
They are willing to file individual affidavits admitting that they
had violated the visa conditions. They undertake that they will
not enter India for the next ten years. They will make their own
arrangements for return by coordinating with their respective
Embassies and Consulates.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail ? :
8.The answer to the above question is obviously in the
affirmative. The offences which the petitioners are alleged to have
committed are not akin to those offences for which there are
limitations for grant of bail. If a person is accused of having
committed offences under NDPS Act, 1985 involving commercial
6/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
7. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
quantity, he cannot be released on bail unless there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Section
43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mandates
that an accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own
bond if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the final
report is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The
restrictions for grant of bail set out in Section 437 of Cr.Pc are
also absent in this case. Even though almost seventy days have
elapsed since their arrest, final report is yet to be filed.
Therefore, the onus is only on the prosecution to convince me as to
why I should deny bail to the petitioners. I must record that the
respondent police have not placed any material or advanced any
contention to impel me to dismiss these petitions.
9.In fact, there cannot be any objection for granting bail to
the petitioners herein. They had been arrested in the first week of
April, 2020 and there is absolutely no progress in the
investigation. The continued incarceration of the petitioners is not
going to serve any purpose. Since the petitioners are foreigners,
it would obviously be difficult for them to arrange local sureties.
Therefore, I direct that they shall be released on their own bond.
The bonds can be submitted to the jurisdictional magistrates through
e-mails and the jurisdictional magistrates are directed to accept
the same and also issue appropriate release orders.
Whether the petitioners after release can be detained in special
camps?:
10.The learned State Public Prosecutor asserts that after the
petitioners are released from jail, they will have to be necessarily
shifted to the special camp that has been designated to accommodate
them. It appears that a Borstal School was established by the
Government in the premises of transit yard in Central Prison, Puzhal
under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 for
detaining adolescent offenders belonging to Chennai, Kancheepuram
and Thiruvallur Districts. While so, a letter dated 15.04.2020 was
received from the Director General of Police, Chennai-4 stating
that fourteen cases have been registered involving 129 foreign
nationals including women for their violation of visa conditions and
other offences. Proposals were submitted for lodging them in a
special camp till their deportation as they may be released on bail
shortly. Trichy special camp could not accommodate all of them
since it was facing space constraint. Therefore, the DGP requested
the Government to designate Borstal School, Puzhal Prison as a
special camp to accommodate the foreign nationals. Accepting the
aforesaid request, the Government rescinded its earlier notification
establishing a Borstal School and issued G.O (2D) No.99, dated
22.04.2020 declaring the premises of transit yard in Central Prison,
Puzhal as special camp to lodge the foreign nationals who have
violated the visa conditions and committed other offences.
7/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
8. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
11.Interestingly, after so declaring, the Principal Secretary
to Government, Public Department vide Letter No.SR.III/717-1/2020
dated 23.04.2020 called for a report on the following :
“whether the place is fit and ready to lodge the
foreign nationals who are to be lodged in the Special
Camp under the provision of Section 3(2)(e) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946.
Necessary prior arrangements like security,
feeding and other basic amenities that have to be
made.
Whether the facilities like civil,
electrical, water, sanitation, lighting etc and
sufficient number of toilets for the use of inmates,
are available keeping in mind the social distancing to
be maintained in view of Covid-19 out-break.”
The letter added “If the above facilities are not available, a
proposal with regard to cost of estimate for the repair works to be
carried out may be sent.” The sequence of events set out above
would clearly show that the authorities acted out of haste and there
was really no application of mind.
12.Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 enables the Central
Government to make orders for prohibiting, regulating or restricting
the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or
their presence or continued presence therein. Section 3(2)(e) is
more relevant. It states that orders made under this section may
provide that the foreigner shall comply with such conditions as may
be prescribed or specified-
(i)requiring him to reside in a particular place;
(ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;
(iii) requiring him to furnish such proof of his
identity and to report such particulars to such authority
in such manner and at such time and place as may be
prescribed or specified;
(iv) requiring him to allow his photograph and
finger impressions to be taken and to furnish specimens
of his handwriting and signature to such authority and at
such time and place as may be prescribed or specified;
(v) requiring him to submit himself to such medical
examination by such authority and at such time and place
as may be prescribed or specified;
(vi) prohibiting him from association with persons
of a prescribed or specified description;
(vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of
a prescribed or specified description;
(viii) prohibiting him from using or possessing
prescribed or specified articles;
(ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such
particular as may be prescribed or specified;
8/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
9. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
Section 4(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is as follows :
“Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as a person
on parole) in respect of whom there is in force an order
under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 3
requiring him to reside at a place set apart for the
residence under supervision of a number of foreigners,
shall, while residing therein, be subject to such
conditions as to maintenance, discipline and the
punishment of offences and breaches of discipline as the
Central Government may from time to time by order
determine.”
The learned State Public Prosecutor is relying on the aforesaid
provisions to sustain his contention that the Government is having
every authority to shift the petitioners to the special camp even
after they are granted bail. I must necessarily sustain the said
contention since they are rooted in statutory provisions. But the
issue is something else. While no exception can be taken to the
encampment measure of the Government, the question is what will be
the resultant ambience and conditions of stay. The answer lies in
examining the statutory scheme and by contrasting Section 3(2)(e)
r/w Section 4(2) with 3(2)(g) and Section 4(1) of the Act. As per
Section 3(2)(g), the order passed by the Government under Section 3
can provide for the arrest and detention or confinement of the
foreigner. The foreigners who fall under Section 3(2)(g) are dealt
under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is as follows :
“Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as an
internee) in respect of whom there is in force any order
made under clause(g) of sub-section (2) of section 3,
directing that he be detained or confined, shall be
detained or confined in such place and manner and
subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline
and the punishment of offences and breaches of
discipline as the Central Government may from time to
time by order determine.”
Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 dealing with internees
classifies them under two categories. Sub-section (1) deals with
those foreigners who have been directed to be detained or confined.
The sub-section mandates that they shall be detained or confined.
But, the other category who are referred to as persons on parole are
required to reside at a place set apart for their residence. The
provision makes a distinction between “detention or confinement” on
the one hand and “residence” on the other. The petitioners herein
fall within the purview of Section 3(2)(e) r/w Section 4(2) of the
Foreigners Act. Therefore, the conditions of the camp in which they
are to be accommodated cannot be that of a detention camp and the
distinction must be clear and apparent and felt. I do not for a
moment suggest that the conditions of a detention camp can be
anything. Far from it ; even those camps will have adhere to
certain parameters laid down in international humanitarian law. For
instance, right to sanitation and safe drinking water is a basic
9/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
10. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
human right. I only emphasise and highlight that the conditions of
a camp envisaged in Section 4(2) must be superior and better
compared to the one contemplated by Section 4(1) of the Act.
13.If this distinction is borne in mind, the petitioners
obviously cannot be confined in the transit yard of the Central
Prison, Puzhal. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners states that the management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi
College, Washermenpet, Chennai is willing to accommodate the
petitioners herein. The petitioners have not committed any act that
is prejudicial to public tranquility or security of India. The
petitioners are not going to abscond. Their travel documents are
only with the authorities. Since the petitioners want to return to
their native country at the earliest, they would obviously extend
their fullest cooperation to any condition that may be stipulated by
the authorities.
14.Of course, on account of Chennai becoming a Covid-19 hot
spot, the Government under Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster
Management Act can stipulate severe conditions on the college
management. The entire campus can be directed to be handed over to
the district administration for inspection and for disinfecting.
The petitioners also can be directed to observe strict conditions.
The Government should therefore consider the offer made by the
management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet, Chennai.
I however cannot straightaway direct the Government to designate the
Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet, Chennai as a special
camp for the purpose of Section 4(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and
shift the petitioners to the said campus. But I can definitely
direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider this proposal
bearing in mind that the petitioners cannot continue to be treated
as prison inmates.
Whether the petitioners have the right to return to their native
country ? :
15.I again go back to Upendra Baxi. The objections raised by
the State authorities cannot obscure the “lived reality” of the
petitioners. The petitioners had come to India to serve the cause
of their religion. Circumstances suddenly turned adverse and landed
them in prison. They have spent more than 70 days in what are truly
difficult conditions. Saidapet sub-jail in which some of them have
been lodged adjoins the infamous Coovam river.
16.Covid-19 should teach us to care for each other rather than
use the arsenal of law. Merely because the petitioners have
contravened the visa conditions, they cannot be seen as criminals.
The situation calls for empathy and understanding. The petitioners
are yearning “to breath the native air in their own ground”. The
longing felt by those who are stuck in an alien place is captured in
the following lines :
10/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
11. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
“From the lone sheiling of the misty highland
Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas -
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And even in dreams we behold the Hebrides.”
In Tamil Sangam Poetry, there is a poem “Naaraai.. Naaraai.. Sengaal
Naaraai”. The husband hailing from Kumbakonam had come to Madurai
in search of fortune. Circumstances did not unfold in the way he
hoped. He fell into severe adversity. He therefore requests the
bird (flamingo) to carry a message to his poor wife. The lines make
a heart rending reading.
17.I feel sensitive to the petitioners' misery particularly in
these pandemic times. I posed a question to myself if I am acting
beyond jurisdiction ? The Hon'ble Chief Justice has allotted the
subject of Criminal Original Petition-Bail, Anticipatory Bail
Petitions, Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Petitions to be
dealt with by me. But, in view of my being a Judge of the High
Court, I certainly have the inherent power to make such orders as
may be necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
(2002) 4 SCC 578 (P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka) had held
as follows :
“....In appropriate cases, the High Courts have
exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for quashing of first information report and investigation,
and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse
of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can
certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach
of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case
referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide
paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear
that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care
of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or
proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting
to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further
proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and
unwarranted.”
18.To quote Baxi, at the heart of every constitution there
pulsates a distinction between 'us' and 'them', the constitutional
self and the constitutional others. But there are provisions
transcending this distinction, being applicable to “all persons”.
Article 21 of the Constitution surely applies to the petitioners
also. Failure to respond to the petitioners' existential horror
would amount to judicial abdication. If I come to the conclusion
that the petitioners have already suffered enough and that they are
being put to “surplus or unnecessary suffering”, I am obliged to
intervene.
11/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
12. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
19.I assume that the petitioners have committed the offences in
question. That need not deter me from granting relief. A learned
Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2006 CRL. L.J. 618 (Usha Badri
Poonawalla v. Kurien Babu) held that the power under Section 482 of
Cr.PC is available even in those cases where there is prima facie
material available to show that the offence has been made out. It
is not that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be invoked
only when the offence is not made out. Even when the offence is
made out, if the continuance of the prosecution would amount to an
abuse of process, this inherent power can be tapped.
20.I now turn to Article 12 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. It is as follows :
“1.Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State
shall, within that territory, have the right to
liberty of movement and freedom to choose his
residence.
2.Everyone shall be free to leave any country,
including his own.
3.The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to
any restrictions except those which are provided by
law, are necessary to protect national security,
public order (ordre public), public health or morals
or the rights and freedoms of others, and are
consistent with the other rights recognized in the
present Covenant.
4.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to
enter his own country.”
India is a signatory to this covenant. It has also ratified it.
This Convention has been relied on in quite a few decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India,
(2018) 10 SCC 1, it was observed as follows :
“523.International law today has evolved towards
establishing that the criminalization of consensual
sexual acts between same-sex adults in private
contravenes the rights to equality, privacy, and freedom
from discrimination. These rights are recognised in
international treaties, covenants, and agreements which
India has ratified, including the UDHR, ICCPR, and the
ICESCR. India has a constitutional duty to honour these
internationally recognized Rules and principles. Article
51 of the Constitution, which forms part of the
Directive Principles of State Policy, requires the State
to endeavour to "foster respect for international law
and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
peoples with one another.”
Of course, the petitioners having violated the visa conditions
cannot demand that they must be allowed to return as a matter of
12/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
13. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
right. But then, the authorities cannot arbitrarily deny the said
request. Since the petitioners have already been in prison for
seventy days, there is a requirement to undertake a proportionality
review. I am of the view that the prison term already undergone by
them should be considered as sufficient punishment. When the
petitioners have already paid the price for their misadventure, to
insist that they should continue to remain in India in prison-like
conditions till the proceedings are concluded grossly offends the
principle of proportionality and fairness.
21.During times of armed conflict or emergency, the right to
leave any country can be invoked. The current pandemic times are no
different. The petitioners fortunately have not tested positive so
far. The position may be different tomorrow. The lives of the
petitioners may be in danger. Times may be uncertain but rights
have to be certain. The petitioners are willing to bear the cost
of transportation. They will coordinate with their embassies and
consulates and arrange their return. All that the respondents need
to do is to play a facilitatory role. Instead of doing so, if the
respondents insist on detaining the petitioners and prosecuting
them, it can only be charecterized as unreasonable, unjust and
unfair. I, therefore, hold that the continuance of the criminal
prosecution against the petitioners herein would certainly amount to
an infraction of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and directing their closure on appropriate
terms alone would secure the ends of justice. Since the petitioners
have already suffered enough for their transgression of law and
there is prevalence of medical emergency, the petitioners are having
the right to return to their native countries at the earliest
opportunity.
22.In fact, I am not issuing any direction contrary to law. I
am merely echoing what is already a settled executive policy. The
Government of India vide O.M.No.25022/82/96-F.1 dated 10.04.1996
mandated the State Governments to keep a watch on all persons who
engage in religious activities in violation of tourist visa
conditions and to deport them immediately. It reads as under :
“It has come to notice that some foreigners who enter
India on the strength of tourist visas, indulge in
religious/Tabligh work against the Visa rules/regulations
and thus render themselves to action under the Foreigners
Act, 1946. State Governments are required to keep a watch
on the activities of such foreigners and as and when any
foreigner coming on tourist visa is found indulging
himself in religious activities/Tabligh work, action
should be taken against him under the Foreigners Act and
he should be deported to the country of his origin under
the powers already delegated to the State Govts. A report
should also be sent to this Ministry so that such persons
are put on 'Prior Reference Category' for the purpose of
grant of visa to them in future.”
13/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
14. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
Thus by facilitating the immediate deportation of the petitioners to
their respective countries, the Government of Tamil Nadu would only
be acting in terms of the aforesaid memorandum.
23.I, therefore, issue the following directions :
1.The petitioners are granted bail. Accordingly,
they are ordered to be released from the respective prisons
wherein they are presently detained on submission of their
own bonds. The jurisdictional magistrates will accept the
same and issue the release orders.
2.After the petitioners are released on bail, it
is open to the authorities to require the petitioners to
stay at the special camp earmarked under Section 3(2)(e)
r/w 4(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. But, the Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is
directed to consider the proposal submitted by the
management of Jamia Qasmiyah Arabi College, Washermenpet,
Chennai to house the petitioners and pass appropriate
orders in the light of the observations made supra.
3.If the petitioners execute appropriate
affidavits expressing their regret for having violated the
visa conditions, proceedings against them shall be
concluded by filing final reports recording the same.
4.It is for the petitioners to coordinate with
their respective embassies/consulates and arrange their
return to their respective nations. The Government of
Tamil Nadu or the Government of India will only play a
facilitatory role.
24.The criminal original petitions are allowed on the above
terms.
sd/-
12/06/2020
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to Covid-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
14/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
15. CRL OP(MD). No.5769 of 2020
TO
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul.
2. -DO-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul
3.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.
4. -DO-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.
5.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram.
6. -DO-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ramanathapuram.
7.The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai.
8.The Officer In-charge, Sub Jail, Sydapet, Chennai.
9.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India, New Delhi.
10.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station,
Dindigul District.
11.The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
12.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
13. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
14. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Chennai.
15. The Secretary to Govt.Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu
Chennai
order made in
CRL OP(MD)Nos.5769, 6018 & 6103 of 2020
Date : 12/06/2020
SMA/skn/SAR-III/15/06/2020/15P/16C
15/15
http://www.judis.nic.in