Tag: bail

Andhra Pradesh HC grants bail to TDP leaders in chit fund case

[ad_1]
Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday granted bail to former Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MLC Adireddy Appa Rao and his son and TDP state executive secretary Adireddy Srinivasa Rao in a case relating to financial irregularities in a chit fund company.
They were arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of Andhra Pradesh on April 30. They had filed a petition for bail and the High Court had completed hearing on the same two days ago.
Appa Rao, the husband of TDP Rajahmundry MLA Adireddy Bhavani, and their son Srinivasa Rao, are directors in Jagajjanani Chit Funds Private Limited.

During the hearing on the bail petition, the counsel of the TDP leaders argued that the Depositors Act does not apply in the case. They also argued that a case was registered against them without any complaint lodged by depositors.
On behalf of the state government, Advocate General Sriram submitted to the court that the accused diverted money of the depositors for other purposes.
The main opposition TDP had condemned the arrests. TDP national president and former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu spoke to Bhavani over phone and expressed solidarity with her.
Naidu said that the political harassment and vendetta by the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government is increasing by the day. He lamented that there is no change in the ruling party’s behaviour.
The TDP president had said the YSRCP government believed only in illegal cases and illegal arrests. He said the arrest of Appa Rao and Srinivasa Rao is another example of the YSRCP government’s politics of vendetta.

The TDP chief said despite courts reprimanding the government on many occasions, the Jagan government has not mended its ways.
Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Andhra #Pradesh #grants #bail #TDP #leaders #chit #fund #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 10, 2023
Excise policy case: Delhi court grants bail to 2 accused citing ‘insufficient evidence’

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted bail to two accused persons in a money laundering case related to alleged excise scam, saying the evidence was not sufficient for the case against them to be considered prima facie “genuine”.
Special Judge M K Nagpal granted the relief to Rajesh Joshi and Gautam Malhotra on a personal bond of Rs two lakh each and one surety of like amount.
The same judge had dismissed AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s bail plea in the case on April 28 and in a related corruption case, being probed by the CBI, on March 31.

In connection with the bail plea by Joshi, the court said it was of the prima facie view that the evidence was not sufficient to make it believe that the case against him was genuine or that he was going to be held guilty of the offence of money laundering.
On Gautam Malhotra, the court said that the case of the prosecution as based on oral and documentary evidence “cannot be prima facie considered to be a genuine case”.
The judge further said in the order passed on May 6 that the mere apprehension that the accused may resort to commission of an offence again will not be sufficient to oppose bail.
He observed that Joshi was not in the liquor business and admittedly, he was also not a participant in any of the meetings which allegedly took place among the other co- accused or conspirators of the criminal conspiracy in connection with the formulation of the now-scrapped excise policy or its implementation.
Joshi is also not alleged to be a member of the ‘South lobby’ or the ‘liquor lobby’ of any region and hence, admittedly, he is not among the persons who are alleged to have paid the kickbacks to co- accused Sisodia or his other associates, and he is also not a recipient of the kickbacks or bribes, he noted.

On the ED’s claim that Joshi was involved in the transfer of advance kickback amount of around Rs 20 -30 crore that was allegedly used in the AAP election campaign for the 2022 Goa assembly polls, the court said there was nothing on record at this stage to link these payments.
It noted Joshi was arrested on February 8 and even prior to that, he was stated to have joined the investigation of this case, as well as that of the connected case being probed by the CBI.
Regarding Malhotra, it noted the ED had claimed that he had paid Rs 2.5 crore as bribe or kickbacks for the ‘South liquor lobby’ and this fact was specifically stated by co-accused Amit Arora.
However, it pointed out that approver Dinesh Arora expressed total ignorance about this transaction. “The statements on this aspect made by the approver cannot be sidelined or ignored at this stage as he is a star witness,” the judge said.
The court further dismissed the ED’s contention that Malhotra formed a cartel by participation in the liquor business of Delhi at all the three levels of manufacturing, wholesale and retail, and thus, he became a member of the super cartel and the criminal conspiracy with the other co- accused.
“Though the above cartel might have been formed in violation of provisions of the excise policy… it appears to be a pure business cartel formed to push the sale of liquor brands of the manufacturing unit(s) of the applicant,” it said.
The court noted it was the admitted case of prosecution that Malhotra had not played any role in the formulation of the excise policy and was even not a part of the ‘South lobby’ paying advance kickbacks of Rs 100 crore.
“Again, he is also not alleged to have paid any such advance kickbacks to co -accused Vijay Nair, other politicians of AAP or other public servants before or in connection with the formulation of the said policy,” the judge said.
The only allegation of payment of any money or bribe against him is in the form of payment of Rs 2.5 crore to co -accused Amit Arora in May 2022, when this policy had already been in operation for a considerable time, he noted.
Even the evidence in the form of a statement by co -accused Amit Arora about the payment of Rs 2.5 crore bribe by him is not convincing enough, the court said.
Regarding the ED’s claim that the accused received proceeds of crime of Rs 48.9 lakh through excess credit notes, it said no specific or connecting evidence showing any such cash payments against the amounts of credit notes has been produced.
The judge said Malhotra also deserved to be granted default bail since the ED filed an “incomplete” supplementary complaint against him and “it has apparently been filed to scuttle or defeat the right of applicant to seek default bail”.
He added that neither Joshi nor Malhotra can be considered a flight risk. The court directed both the accused persons not to leave the country without its permission or threaten or influence witnesses.
However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail applications of the applicants and nothing contained in this order shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on merits of the case, the judge said.
Sisodia, who was arrested on March 9, is currently in judicial custody in the case. The court on April 28 dismissed his bail application in the case, saying the evidence prima facie “speaks volumes of his involvement in commission of the offence”.
[ad_2]
#Excise #policy #case #Delhi #court #grants #bail #accused #citing #insufficient #evidence
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 7, 2023
Morbi bridge collapse: Gujarat HC grants bail to three security guards

[ad_1]
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Thursday granted bail to the three security guards who were deployed on the suspension bridge in Morbi town when it collapsed on October 30 last year claiming more than a hundred lives.
While granting relief to them, Justice Samir Dave took into account their lawyer’s submission that they were merely doing their job and played no role in the decision-making process that led to the tragedy.
As many as 135 persons were killed and 56 grievously injured when the British-era bridge, maintained and operated by Oreva Group, collapsed days after it had been reopened following repairs.

After a short hearing, the HC granted bail to Alpesh Gohil (25), Dilip Gohil (33) and Mukesh Chauhan (26), all residents of Tunki Vaju village in Garbada taluka of Dahod district.
They were among the ten accused arrested by police in the case. It was alleged that besides faulty repairing, failure to manage the footfall on the bridge led to its collapse.
The accused trio’s lawyer Ekant Ahuja said they had actually been hired as labourers by Oreva Group, but were deployed as security guards on the bridge on the fateful day as it was their weekly off.
Public prosecutor Mitesh Amin did not oppose the bail pleas, stating that the “principal liability lies on the owners of Oreva Group and persons who performed the fabrication job (on the bridge)”.
Justice Dave said he was allowing the bail pleas as the applicants were security personnel hired by the company.

Those who are still behind bars include Jaysukh Patel, managing director of the Oreva Group; managers of the firm Dipak Parekh and Dinesh Dave; ticket-booking clerks Mansukh Topiya and Mahadev Solanki, and sub-contractors Prakash Parmar and Devang Parmar who had been hired by Oreva Group for repair works on the bridge.
Morbi police had in January filed a charge sheet in the case.
All ten accused have been charged under Indian Penal Code section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) besides other offences.
[ad_2]
#Morbi #bridge #collapse #Gujarat #grants #bail #security #guards
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 4, 2023
Excise policy case: Delhi HC adjourns hearing on Sisodia’s interim bail plea to May 10

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing on former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s interim bail plea in the 2021-22 excise policy case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to May 10.
Appearing for the probe agency, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju submitted before the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma that “the change from 5 percent to 12 percent in the interest rate was made to get the kickback money. He (Sisodia) made the policy in such a way that guaranteed return in form of kickbacks came”.
“Sisodia concealed legal experts’ opinion given by eminent personalities as well. He hadn’t mentioned it anywhere. It was ignored completely. They (members of AAP) did not include it in the policy,” the ASG added.

He also said that there was a draft note prepared by a person named Rahul Singh on the instance of Manish Sisodia, which can be proved from their WhatsApp chats.
“The original is missing. Only a part of the draft has been retrieved from the phones,” he said.
Taking note of the submission, the judge adjourned the matter for further submissions to May 10.
Notably, Sisodia had moved the high court on Wednesday seeking interim bail in the case on the ground of his wife’s illness.
Earlier on Thursday, the high court had sought the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) response on Sisodia’s bail plea in the same case.

Last week, Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court had extended Sisodia’s judicial custody till May 12.
The court had also directed the CBI to supply an e-copy of the supplementary charge sheet to Sisodia.
[ad_2]
#Excise #policy #case #Delhi #adjourns #hearing #Sisodias #interim #bail #plea
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 4, 2023
Pak court warns Imran of bail cancellation for missing hearing

[ad_1]
Islamabad: A Pakistani court on Wednesday warned former prime minister Imran Khan that it may cancel his interim bail as it expressed its staunch dissatisfaction over the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) chief’s persistent absence from court hearings in various cases, according to a media report.
Hearing Khan’s interim bail plea in a case involving murder attempt charges filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz parliamentarian Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha last year, Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq said that the former premier has made a “joke out of the courts” and asked him to appear in the court on Wednesday itself, the Dawn newspaper reported.
More than 100 cases have been registered against Khan since he was voted out of office through a no-confidence motion in April last year. But he has not been arrested in any of the cases so far.

In a few of the cases, including the mutiny and inappropriate language against the Pakistani Army, the 70-year-old leader has been given anticipatory bail by the High Court with conditions that he would be present in the court hearings without fail to which he has agreed.
On Wednesday, while hearing the case filed by PML-N’s Ranjha, Justice Farooq asked Khan to be present in court the same day itself after expressing his dissatisfaction over the former premier’s persistent absences in various cases.
“If the petitioner, Imran Khan, does not appear during court timings [today], will dismiss the interim bail. The judge added that the former premier has made a joke out of the courts,” the report quoted Justice Farooq as saying.
On October 23, 2022, Ranjha lodged a criminal complaint claiming that the shot fired by a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa policeman outside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Constitution Avenue on October 21, 2022, was “an attempt on his life” allegedly at the behest of Khan.
The disqualification of Khan in the Toshakhana case had sparked protests in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, especially at Faizabad, resulting in the arrest of three people — a PTI lawmaker and his two police guards.

The clash between the protesters and police had started outside the ECP soon after the verdict disqualifying Khan when the KP police guard of Member of National Assembly Saleh Mohammad fired a gunshot.
On April 18, the IHC had extended Khan’s bail in eight cases — including those pertaining to violence outside the Federal Judicial Complex — till May 3, the report said.
Accepting the PTI chairman’s request for a bail extension and exemption from court appearance that day, Justice Farooq had made it clear then that Khan’s interim bail in all the cases will be cancelled if he did not appear in court on Wednesday, the report said.
However, shortly after the court proceedings, PTI Senator Shibli Faraz said in a tweet that Imran “respected the courts” and implied that the reason for the PTI chief’s absence was his leg getting “injured again” during his appearance at the Lahore High Court on Tuesday.
He wrote: “Imran Khan’s leg got injured again yesterday at the Lahore High Court due to the jostling brought about because of the lack of security provided by the government.
“Doctors have advised [Imran] to rest for 10 days. Upon recuperating, he will again face the cases filed on political bases. [Imran] Khan sahib respects the courts,” the PTI senator was quoted as saying in the report.
[ad_2]
#Pak #court #warns #Imran #bail #cancellation #missing #hearing
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 3, 2023
Absence of sanction in charge sheet under UAPA no ground for default bail: SC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that an accused in an UAPA case cannot seek default bail on the ground that the charge sheet filed within the stipulated time period was incomplete due to absence of valid sanction from competent authority.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, noted that the maximum period of 180 days, which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation for prosecution for an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed, including obtaining of sanction, within this period of 180 days.
It said the investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction and sanction is altogether a different process — accorded, based on the materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC.

“The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction and placing the same along with the charge sheet should be done within the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the provisions of law…. but is inconceivable,” said Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench said the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the form of charge sheet is thoroughly looked into and thereafter, the recommendations are made. The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation and file its report before the competent court in accordance with Section 173(2) of the CrPC, it said.
Justice Pardiwala said: “If we accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants, it comes to this that the investigating agency may have to adjust the period of investigation in such a manner that within the period of 180 days, the sanction is also obtained and placed before the court. We find this argument absolutely unpalatable.”
The bench observed that this court was of the firm view that if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of charge sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the accused on bail.
“However, once the charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period, the right of the accused to statutory/default bail came to an end and the accused would be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits,” it noted.

The apex court dismissed a plea by Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, rejecting their contention for default bail due to absence of valid sanction in the charge sheet.
The bench said it is evident that the order of sanction passed by the competent authority can be produced and placed on record even after the filing of the charge sheet. It said that it may happen that the inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the special court may lead to delay in trial because the competent court will not be able to take cognisance of the offence without a valid sanction on record.
“In such an eventuality, at the most, it may be open for the accused to argue that his right to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. This may at the most entitle the accused to pray for regular bail on the ground of delay in trial. But the same cannot be a ground to pray for statutory/default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC,” said Justice Pardiwala.
He said that Rule 3 of the Rules 2008 makes it explicitly clear that the authority under sub section (2) of Section 45 of the UAPA is obliged in law to apply its mind thoroughly to the evidence gathered by the investigating officer and thereafter, prepare its report containing the recommendations to the Central government or the state government for the grant of sanction.
“The grant of sanction is not an idle formality. The grant of sanction should reflect proper application of mind,” he said.
The bench noted that according sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all and in case, the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court.
“Section 173 of the CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section 167 of the CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognisance by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order,” said the bench.
[ad_2]
#Absence #sanction #charge #sheet #UAPA #ground #default #bail
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 1, 2023
‘Godman’ Asaram gets bail in forged documents case

[ad_1]
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court on Monday granted bail to self-styled godman Asaram in a case pertaining to furnishing a forged RTI reply in the Supreme Court in support of his bail plea.
Granting bail to Asaram, Justice Kuldeep Mathur of the high court’s Jodhpur bench observed that no direct role was attributed to the petitioner in the creation of the forged RTI reply submitted before the apex court and the offences alleged to have been committed by him are triable by a magistrate.
Asaram is already serving a life sentence since 2018, following his conviction in a case of sexual exploitation of a minor student of his “gurukul”.

The court also took into account that co-accused Ravirai Marwah has already been granted bail and the trial is likely to go on for long.
The case was lodged against Asaram after Marwah, one of his sympathisers, submitted the forged RTI reply pertaining to the self-styled godman’s health condition in the Supreme Court for the purpose of his bail in 2016.
The document was allegedly obtained from a Jodhpur jail through an application filed under the the Right to Information (RTI) Act by one Ganesh Kumar and was provided to Marwah, who subsequently handed it to Asaram’s lawyer in the apex court.
On finding that the document was forged following an objection by the state government, the Supreme Court had directed police to file a case against Asaram and Marwah despite the self-styled godman tendering an apology in the court.
Asaram’s counsel Gokulesh Bohra said police had arrested Asaram in the case from the Jodhpur jail on a production warrant and filed a chargesheet against the two.

“While Marwah has already been granted bail, we also argued in the court that Asaram has already been in judicial custody in another criminal case for the last 10 years and he is not allowed to meet devotees and other visitors in the absence of the jail authorities,” Bohra said.
He further told the court that the petitioner could not have had any opportunity to prepare a fake document and was only a signatory to the vakalatnama filed before the Supreme Court for bail.
[ad_2]
#Godman #Asaram #bail #forged #documents #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 1, 2023
NIA Opposes Separatist Leader’s Bail Plea In Terror Funding Case

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has opposed the bail plea of separatist leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan in a case related to alleged terror funding under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) before the Delhi High Court.
Khan has been in judicial custody since August 14, 2017, and has been accused by the NIA of “creating unrest” in the Kashmir valley. He was arrested on July 24, 2017, and charges for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including sedition and UAPA, were framed against him by a special NIA court on March 16 last year.
The NIA has submitted that evidence collected in the case clearly establishes a prima facie case against Khan and that he was involved in terrorist and funding activities. Certain letters were found during search and seizure from Khan’s residence showing that he was getting students admitted for MBBS courses in Pakistan, according to the agency.
The NIA has alleged that this shows Khan’s involvement in terror funding out of commission earned from getting students admitted to MBBS courses in Pakistan. Various videos have also been relied upon by the NIA to allege that Khan is seen leading a “pro-ISIS rally” and “visiting areas where terrorists were killed.” The NIA has stated that the videos have conversations by Khan about funding from Hizbul Mujahideen.
The matter will be heard on May 03 by a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh. The case alleges that there was a larger criminal conspiracy for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley by way of “pelting stones on the security forces, systematically burning of schools, damage to public property, and for waging war against India.” The case has been registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA.
While denying him bail, the special NIA judge had noted that a detailed scrutiny of evidence and statements of various witnesses was done at the time of framing of charges and it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence available raising “grave suspicion” regarding Khan’s involvement. (LiveLaw)

[ad_2]
#NIA #Opposes #Separatist #Leaders #Bail #Plea #Terror #Funding #Case

( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

April 30, 2023
Telangana HC adjourns hearing on Kadapa MP’s anticipatory bail plea

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday adjourned, to June 5, the hearing on the anticipatory bail petition of Kadapa MP Y.S. Avinash Reddy in former Andhra Pradesh minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy’s murder case.
While the MP’s counsel pleaded to the court to pass an order restraining CBI from taking any harsh measure against him in the case, Justice K. Surender made it clear that it’s not possible to hear the arguments and pass an order immediately.
As the court has summer holidays from Saturday, the judge adjourned the hearing to June 5.

Avinash Reddy’s lawyer Niranjan Reddy requested the court to hear the case during holidays as the CBI is likely to arrest the MP. The judge suggested that in case of any emergency, they may make a request to the Chief Justice.
Counsel then requested the court to at least pass an order restraining the CBI from arresting him for two weeks. The High Court, however, made it clear that in view of the Supreme Court’s judgement, it can’t pass such an order.
The MP’s counsel was suggested to approach a special vacation bench, if necessary.
The Supreme Court had last week set aside Telangana High Court’s interim order, staying his arrest by the CBI till April 25.
The apex court pronounced the order on a petition filed by Vivekananda Reddy’s daughter Suneetha Reddy.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha also extended the deadline for completing the investigation into the case till June 30.
The Supreme Court had earlier fixed April 30 as the deadline for the CBI.
Avinash Reddy, cousin of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Redddy, appeared before the CBI as per the interim order of the Telangana High Court on his anticipatory bail petition.
Vivekananda Reddy, brother of former Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, and uncle of Jagan Mohan Reddy, was murdered at his residence in Pulivendula on March 15, 2019, weeks before the elections.
The 68-year-old former state minister and former MP was alone at his house when unidentified persons barged in and killed him.
The CBI took over the investigation into the case in 2020 on the direction of Andhra Pradesh High Court while hearing a petition of Vivekananda Reddy’s daughter Suneetha Reddy, who raised suspicion about some relatives.
[ad_2]
#Telangana #adjourns #hearing #Kadapa #MPs #anticipatory #bail #plea
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 28, 2023
SC grants bail to Hardik Patel in 2015 Patidar stir case

[ad_1]
New Delhi The Supreme Court Friday granted bail to BJP leader Hardik Patel in a case lodged against him in connection with the violence during the Patidar stir in Gujarat in 2015 subject to his “diligent participation” in the investigation.
A bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli made its earlier order granting protection to Patel absolute.
“This court had in February 2020 issued notice and had granted interim protection. Three-and-a-half years have passed since then. In these circumstances, we see no reason to alter the order at this juncture.

“Hence, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue till the completion of further process, subject to his diligent participation in the process, if called upon to do so,” the bench said while disposing of the plea filed by Patel.
The top court was hearing a 2020 plea filed by Patel challenging the Gujarat High Court order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea after considering the government’s objection on grounds of his criminal antecedents.
The Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti under Patel had organised a mega rally in Ahmedabad as part of the stir demanding quota for the community in government jobs and an FIR was lodged for “unlawful assembly” as the police claimed the event did not have requisite permissions.
The police had also contended that this unlawful gathering led to violence, in which over a dozen youths were killed and the property was damaged.
In his anticipatory bail plea before the high court, Patel had claimed that he was being “victimised by the ruling party of the state” which has slapped “several false, frivolous and concocted cases against him”.

[ad_2]
#grants #bail #Hardik #Patel #Patidar #stir #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 28, 2023