Tag: rejects

  • AI urination incident: DGCA rejects plea to revoke suspension of pilot’s licence

    AI urination incident: DGCA rejects plea to revoke suspension of pilot’s licence

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Aviation regulator DGCA has rejected the plea to revoke the suspension of the licence of an Air India pilot in connection with the urination incident onboard New York-Delhi flight in November last year, according to a source.

    The licence of the pilot was suspended for three months by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on January 20.

    A joint forum of six unions had also appealed to the regulator to revoke the suspension of the pilot’s licence.

    On Wednesday, the source said the appeal of the pilot to revoke the licence suspension has been rejected.

    In connection with the urination incident that happened onboard the Air India flight on November 26, 2022, the regulator had suspended the licence of the pilot for three months, imposed a penalty of Rs 30 lakh on the airline and Rs 3 lakh on the director of the carrier’s in-flight services.

    The enforcement action was taken by the DGCA citing various lapses in reporting about the incident, which came to the regulator’s notice only on January 4.

    On January 24, the forum said that while there is a groundswell of “public pressure” for action, given the serious nature of the allegations of the complainant, there is a need to evaluate the same with the nature of the Pilot-In-Command’s duties and responsibilities, among others and to evaluate the facts that came up before the pilots and crew on the said flight.

    Citing various aspects, the forum had asked the regulator to “withdraw the harsh punishment and suspension of the PIC”.

    The six unions represented by the forum are Indian Pilots Guild, Indian Commercial Pilots Association, Air Corporation Employees Union, Air India Employees Union, All India Cabin Crew Association and Airline Pilots Association of India.

    [ad_2]
    #urination #incident #DGCA #rejects #plea #revoke #suspension #pilots #licence

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • AI urination incident: DGCA rejects plea to revoke suspension of pilot’s licence

    AI urination incident: DGCA rejects plea to revoke suspension of pilot’s licence

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Aviation regulator DGCA has rejected the plea to revoke the suspension of the licence of an Air India pilot in connection with the urination incident onboard New York-Delhi flight in November last year, according to a source.

    The licence of the pilot was suspended for three months by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on January 20.

    A joint forum of six unions had also appealed to the regulator to revoke the suspension of the pilot’s licence.

    On Wednesday, the source said the appeal of the pilot to revoke the licence suspension has been rejected.

    In connection with the urination incident that happened onboard the Air India flight on November 26, 2022, the regulator had suspended the licence of the pilot for three months, imposed a penalty of Rs 30 lakh on the airline and Rs 3 lakh on the director of the carrier’s in-flight services.

    The enforcement action was taken by the DGCA citing various lapses in reporting about the incident, which came to the regulator’s notice only on January 4.

    On January 24, the forum said that while there is a groundswell of “public pressure” for action, given the serious nature of the allegations of the complainant, there is a need to evaluate the same with the nature of the Pilot-In-Command’s duties and responsibilities, among others and to evaluate the facts that came up before the pilots and crew on the said flight.

    Citing various aspects, the forum had asked the regulator to “withdraw the harsh punishment and suspension of the PIC”.

    The six unions represented by the forum are Indian Pilots Guild, Indian Commercial Pilots Association, Air Corporation Employees Union, Air India Employees Union, All India Cabin Crew Association and Airline Pilots Association of India.

    [ad_2]
    #urination #incident #DGCA #rejects #plea #revoke #suspension #pilots #licence

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Judge rejects ‘terrorism’ sentencing enhancement for leader of Jan. 6 tunnel confrontation

    Judge rejects ‘terrorism’ sentencing enhancement for leader of Jan. 6 tunnel confrontation

    [ad_1]

    McFadden’s swept away efforts by prosecutors to apply several enhancements to Judd’s sentence, most notably the so-called “terrorism” enhancement, for what Justice Department lawyers said was his intent to disrupt government functions with force. McFadden discarded their recommendations, noting that Judd didn’t appear to preplan his attack the way terrorists like those in a 2012 attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, did.

    Rather, the judge said, Judd was “in some ways there at the behest of the president,” who had just minutes earlier urged his supporters to march on Congress and protest the certification of the election results.

    It’s the second time prosecutors have attempted to apply the terrorism enhancement to a Jan. 6 defendant — both times unsuccessfully — during the sentencing process. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ashley Akers emphasized that the government viewed Judd’s crime as “domestic terrorism” worthy of the enhancement, which would add significant time on to Judd’s recommended sentence.

    Invoking the terrorism enhancement can add about 15 years in prison to a defendant’s recommended sentence, set the minimum calculation at 17-and-a-half years, and also flip the person charged into the criminal-history category used for serial offenders.

    However, prosecutors asked for only a modest adjustment in Judd’s case because the 2 offenses he pled guilty to — assault on a police officer and obstructing an official proceeding — are not on a list Congress has established of crimes of terrorism.

    Still, McFadden declined to apply even that adjustment.

    The judge noted that in the other case where prosecutors sought the more serious enhancement — against Texas’ Guy Reffitt — prosecutors assembled an extraordinary roster of evidence showing that Reffitt planned his actions on Jan. 6, carried a firearm, was a member of a right wing militia group and threatened a witness afterward. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Freidrich rejected the enhancement, sentencing Reffitt to 7.25 years in prison.

    McFadden used Monday’s sentencing hearing to strike another blow in a long-running critique of the Justice Department, which he has accused of treating Jan. 6 cases more harshly than rioters charged alongside the social justice protests in the summer of 2020. He said DOJ’s charging decisions in some of those cases cast doubt on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s vow for there “not to be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. One rule for friends, one rule for foes.”

    Prosecutors have rejected the claim, arguing that Jan. 6 and the concerted assault on the transfer of power stands in stark contrast to the summertime 2020 violence — and is often accompanied by far more compelling video evidence of the crimes. They also noted that in some of the 2020 violence — particularly in Portland, Oregon — federal prosecutors opted against charging defendants who were facing even harsher charges at the state level.

    McFadden, however, homed in on cases like the New York Police Department attorneys who threw Molotov cocktails in an empty NYPD police cruiser, whose sentence he said was relatively light compared to the steep penalties DOJ is seeking for some Jan. 6 offenders.

    Even after McFadden rejected DOJ’s harshest sentencing enhancements, McFadden decided to apply a so-called “downward variance” to Judd’s sentencing, below the recommended sentencing guidelines, which called for a minimum of 37 months incarceration.

    McFadden said he agreed with Judd’s contention that the object he threw at police was more akin to a sparkler than a firework that could have caused actual harm to police officers. Though McFadden said he believed Judd did intend to hurt people in the tunnel — noting that Judd himself fled after lobbing the object.

    Under a 2005 Supreme Court case, federal judges are free to sentence defendants outside of guidelines, but courts are required to calculate the recommended range before imposing a sentence.

    Judd briefly addressed the court, through tears, apologizing to police officers who defended the Capitol and to his family for causing them pain.

    [ad_2]
    #Judge #rejects #terrorism #sentencing #enhancement #leader #Jan #tunnel #confrontation
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Kerala HC rejects Mohanlal’s plea against trial court order in illegal ivory case

    Kerala HC rejects Mohanlal’s plea against trial court order in illegal ivory case

    [ad_1]

    Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed actor Mohanlal’s plea against a trial court order rejecting the state government’s move to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in a case related to illegal possession of ivory tusks.

    Justice A Badharudeen was of the view that an accused in a case “have no right to challenge an order refusing withdrawal of prosecution” since the said procedure is the prerogative of the prosecution.

    The court, however, also set aside the trial court order and directed it to consider afresh the state government’s plea to withdraw prosecution in the case.

    “…the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution of the present case sought for by the government requires reconsideration by the trial court,” the high court said.

    It directed the parties to appear before the trial court on March 3.

    “There shall be a direction to the trial court to hear and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of copy of this order, at any rate within a period of six months,” the high court said.

    The state government had sought withdrawal of the prosecution contending that it would be a futile exercise and wastage of the court’s time.

    The magisterial court, in its June 2022 order, indicated that it was not inclined to grant the prayer as the withdrawal petition was filed in a hasty manner without addressing the challenges raised before the High Court regarding legality of the ownership certificate issued to Mohanlal.

    The state government had on February 7, 2020 extended consent for withdrawal from prosecution in this case.

    The trial court, in its order, had noted that there was no gazette notification in this case and hence the alleged certificate of ownership of the tusks has no legal sanctity and was void ab initio.

    Four elephant tusks were seized from the actor’s house in a raid conducted by the Income Tax authorities in June 2012, following which a case was registered against him.

    The complainant had alleged that the top actor had used his clout to bury the case without any further investigation.

    [ad_2]
    #Kerala #rejects #Mohanlals #plea #trial #court #order #illegal #ivory #case

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Allahabad HC rejects petition seeking cancelling of FIR against conversion accused

    Allahabad HC rejects petition seeking cancelling of FIR against conversion accused

    [ad_1]

    Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an FIR lodged against 37 people accused of coercing a man to undergo a religious conversion from Hinduism to Christianity through inducements.

    The writ petition was filed by Jose Prakash George and 36 Others seeking quashing of the FIR lodged on January 23, 2023, under sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B IPC and section 3/5 (1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur.

    The petitioner’s counsel contended that an FIR on almost identical allegations had been lodged on April 15, 2022, under the same Act.

    The complainant in the instant case is one of the witnesses whose statement was recorded by the police in the FIR lodged on April 15, 2022.

    The accused in both FIRs are the same barring, one or two persons. Only the informant in both cases is different, and both cases allege mass religious conversion by fraud, coercion, and allurement, the counsel said.

    In light of these facts, the counsel contended that the FIR is barred by sections 154 and 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    A division bench comprising Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar on Friday rejected the petition saying it was of the view that the second FIR, though related to the same incident, cannot be quashed as it has been lodged by a competent person.

    “Since, the first information report dated April 15, 2022, had not been lodged by a person competent to lodge it, it is of no consequence. For the same reason, the impugned first information report cannot be called a second first information report. It, therefore, cannot be said that there are two separate first information reports of the same incident.

    “It has already been observed in the earlier part of this order that the allegations in the first information report impugned, contain ingredients of a cognizable offence. Therefore, also the impugned first information report is not liable to be quashed,” the court observed.

    “In view of the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed,” it said.

    [ad_2]
    #Allahabad #rejects #petition #seeking #cancelling #FIR #conversion #accused

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

    Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump missed his chance to use his DNA to try to prove he did not rape the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal judge said on Wednesday, clearing a potential roadblock to an April trial.

    The judge, Lewis A Kaplan, rejected the 11th-hour offer by Trump’s legal team to provide a DNA sample to rebut claims Carroll first made publicly in a 2019 book.

    Kaplan said lawyers for Trump and Carroll had more than three years to make DNA an issue in the case and both chose not to do so.

    He said it would almost surely delay the trial scheduled to start on 25 April to reopen the DNA issue four months after the deadline passed to litigate concerns over trial evidence and weeks before trial.

    Trump’s lawyers did not immediately comment. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, declined to comment.

    Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

    Trump has denied knowing Carroll, saying repeatedly he never raped her and accusing her of making the claim to stoke sales of her book. She has sued him for defamation and under a New York law which allows alleged victims of sexual assault to sue over alleged crimes outside the usual statute of limitations.

    After refusing to provide a DNA sample, Trump’s lawyers switched tactics, saying they would provide one if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

    But Kaplan said Trump had provided no persuasive reason to relieve him of the consequences of his failure to seek the full DNA report in a timely fashion.

    The judge also noted that the report did not find evidence of sperm cells and that reopening the dispute would raise a “complicated new subject into this case that both sides elected not to pursue over a period of years”.

    He said a positive match of Trump’s DNA to that on the dress would prove only that there had been an encounter between Trump and Carroll on a day when she wore the dress, but would not prove or disprove that a rape occurred and might prove entirely inconclusive.

    Kaplan added: “His conditional invitation to open a door that he kept closed for years threatens to change the nature of a trial for which both parties now have been preparing for years. Whether Mr Trump’s application is intended for a dilatory purpose or not, the potential prejudice to Ms Carroll is apparent.”

    The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

    The Carroll case is just one source of legal jeopardy for Trump, who is now one of two candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

    He also faces an investigation of a hush money payment to a porn star who claims an affair, investigations of his financial and tax affairs, investigations of his election subversion attempts, and investigation of his retention of classified records.

    • Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 802 9999. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html

    [ad_2]
    #Judge #rejects #Trump #DNA #offer #Jean #Carroll #rape #defamation #case
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Court Rejects Bail To Five Solders Arrested In Drug Peddling

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: A Kashmir court has turned down the bail application of five soldiers who were arrested in a drug peddling case, NDTV reported. The court ruled that their detention is required to lay hands on other accused.

    The five soldiers were operating the drug-peddling gang while being posted at Panzgam in Kupwara. They were arrested last month and accused for running the drug cartel from Tangdhar, a border town located on the Line of Control (LoC).

    The bail application was moved before the Additional district and sessions judge, Kupwara, who rejected the plea. The court observed that soldiers were supposed to protect society but regretted this bunch worked in contravention of it.

    “According to the police, drugs were coming from Pakistan through Tangdhar sector and five soldiers posted in Panzgam area of Kupwara were involved in drug trafficking,” the NDTV report said, identifying the accused soldiers as Naib-Subedar Puran Singh, Anil Kumar (driver) Sepoy Sushil Kumar, Naik Waseem Ahmad Mir and Mohammad Shafiq Khan.

    The soldiers apparently were working with four civilians who were identified as Mashkoor Sheikh (working as a porter with Army), Mohammad Yousaf Kothari, Saleem Sheikh and Mohammad Imran Teli.

    This is the second time in the last two months that security personnel have been arrested for drug smuggling from the Line of Control in Kupwara district.

    The report said that federal investigator, NIA arrested a BSF officer posted in Handwara – also part of the frontier Kupwara district, “on charges of cross-border drug smuggling linked with the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist group”. Identified as Romesh Kumar, report said Rs 91 lakh cash was recovered from Kumar.

    [ad_2]
    #Court #Rejects #Bail #Solders #Arrested #Drug #Peddling

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

  • FM rejects ‘green Budget for Adani’ charge; says allocation not biased

    FM rejects ‘green Budget for Adani’ charge; says allocation not biased

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday rejected Opposition charges of the Budget allocations for green and clean energy being made keeping the Adani Group in mind, saying it might be Congress culture to give benefits to ‘jijas’ and ‘bhatijas’ but not of the Modi government.

    Sitharaman had in Budget 2023-24 provided Rs 35,000 crore for clean energy transition — a space where the Adani Group has announced massive projects ranging from renewable energy capacity to green hydrogen production. Such allocation has been tagged ‘green growth’ budget and the Opposition punned it to imply it was meant for Adani Group firms such as Adani Green Energy Ltd.

    ” … kyun ki mera naam le kar ek vipaksh ke neta bole, kya Nirmala Sitharaman ne green mei itna amount allot kiya, kya itna amount kisiko mann mei rakhte hue allot kiya? (Because one Opposition leader took my name and said, did Nirmala Sitharaman allocate so much amount to green sector keeping in mind a particular individual?)

    “Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi government, any allocation is not made keeping anyone specific in mind, rather by keeping everyone in mind. The government keeps country in mind. Such kind of remarks is absolutely wrong…,” the minister said without naming any company or individual.

    She was replying to the general discussion on the Union Budget in the Lok Sabha.

    Proceedings of Parliament have been disrupted by Opposition parties demanding a probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee or a Supreme Court monitored enquiry into allegations of financial fraud made by US-based Hindenburg Research against the Adani Group.

    While participating in the debate, Congress’ Leader of the House Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury sought an explanation from the Finance Minister on how can investors have confidence when the market capitalisation of one of the richest persons in the world eroded by 47 per cent following allegations of accounting fraud and stock price manipulation.

    Without naming the Congress, Sitharaman said there were times when phone calls were made to banks for giving loans to benefit certain people.

    “…if phone calls were made, if relations were given benefit, if jijajis and bhatijas (brothers-in law and nephews) were given benefit, it might be their culture,” she said in an apparent dig at the Gandhi family.

    “Under Prime Minister Modi, none of us do any of that. And therefore, any such allegation will be given back in the same language. I’m sorry…I can’t afford to have this kind of language,” Sitharaman said.

    There were allegations that systems were bypassed to provide bank loans to people associated with the Congress party leadership during the UPA regime (2004-2014). The Congress party has rejected such allegations.

    Sitharaman also said during earlier Congress regimes, there were massacres and cited examples of Nellie in Assam and the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. She also accused the then Congress party government for brutally suppressing Sadhus protesting cow slaughter in Delhi in 1966.

    “Who will answer for these,” she said, adding the Modi government was not against any community and does not believe in vote bank politics.

    [ad_2]
    #rejects #green #Budget #Adani #charge #allocation #biased

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • BRS, AAP, Shiv Sena-UBT stage walkout from RS after chair rejects notices on Adani row

    BRS, AAP, Shiv Sena-UBT stage walkout from RS after chair rejects notices on Adani row

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Members of the Aam Aadmi Party, Shiv Sena Thackeray faction and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) on Wednesday staged a walkout from the Rajya Sabha after their adjournment notices were disallowed by the chair.

    Soon after laying of papers, Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar said he has received four notices under Rule 267 from BRS member K Keshava Rao, AAP member Sanjay Singh and Shiv Sena members Sanjay Raut and Priyanka Chaturvedi and disallowed the same.

    Rao stood up and raised objection to the Rajya Sabha chairman’s remarks on Tuesday on their boycott of the House.

    Sanjay Singh also rose to seek a discussion on the Adani issue but was not allowed by the chair as their notices were disallowed.

    Soon, the BRS, Sena and AAP members staged a walkout from the House.

    The House started the discussion on the motion of thanks to the president’s address as there was no Zero Hour and Question Hour. The discussion on the motion of thanks would continue without lunch break.

    “I have received four notices under Rule 267 from Sanjay Raut, K Keshava Rao, Sanjay Singh, Priyanka Chaturvedi. I reiterate my stand. I have carefully gone through them. I do not find the notices in order. I am constrained not to allow them,” the chairman said.

    On BRS member Rao’s anguish over the chairman’s remarks made on Tuesday, he said, “The kind of aggressive body language you are reflecting is most unfortunate. You have perhaps not had the occasion to go through what I had said yesterday with full sense of sublimity, sobriety and seriousness.”

    Asking him to take his seat, he said, “This is not the way we conduct this House. What I said is on record, you can take recourse to rules. This is not the way to do it. I have conveyed my sentiments and these are the sentiments of millions of people.”

    Dhankhar said for the first time in this country, a history of the “wrong type” has been created by engaging in a proclaimed boycott of the President.

    “I would urge the members, we are sending a very dangerous signal to people. Their anger is beyond tolerance. Every time in the morning they see this spectacle of the House being plunged into disorder as part of strategy,” the chairman said.

    AAP, BRS members created uproar by raising slogans of “PM sadan mein aao. jawaab do. JPC se jaanch karao (PM should come to the House and answer and JPC probe should be ordered)” and later staged a walkout.

    They later held a demonstration in front of the Gandhi statue in Parliament premises.

    [ad_2]
    #BRS #AAP #Shiv #SenaUBT #stage #walkout #chair #rejects #notices #Adani #row

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Former Police Driver In Fake Encounter Case

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: A local court on Monday rejected the bail plea of a former police driver for his involvement in a ‘fake encounter’ 16 years ago in northern Kashmir’s Bandipora district.

    Principal Sessions Judge Bandipora Amit Sharma while rejecting the bail plea of accused police officer Faroooq Ahmad Padroo, said that bail cannot be granted to a person who has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization.

    The court observed that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed definitely shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.

    Farooq Ahmad Padroo, a police driver is co-accused along with former SSP Ganderbal Hans Raj Parihar in an infamous fake encounter killing of a cloth merchant-Gh nabi Wani of Kokernag in 2006. Padroo is facing trial in cases FIR No.52/2006 police station Sumbal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (abduction), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 344 (wrongful confinement) RPC .

    The accused petitioner through his counsel Advocate Parvaiz Nazir had appealed for bail on the grounds that the accused is facing trial for more than 15 years and there is no chance for the conclusion of the trial in the near future. Petitioner pleaded that the long detention of the accused under trial prisoner developed various ailments including psychiatric disorder, with the result that the accused is not in a position to communicate and behave properly.

    The petitioner prayed that it is old and falls within the exception of bail while the court has also granted bail to two other accused in the same case thus sought the same treatment. Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that he has got right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, but in the instant case, the applicant has been deprived of the same, as none of his faults therefore indulgence of this court is imperative.

    However the state on behalf of the victim’s family through Public Prosecutor Abdul Majid and Additional Public prosecutor Bilal Ahmad objected to the bail plea and prayed for rejection of the bail.

    The Public Prosecutor pleaded that the entire evidence on record recorded during the proceedings of trial proves the involvement of the accused person in the offence of gruesome murder of an innocent individual of the soil. He pleaded that the offence is more heinous and more serious in nature because it has been committed by the persons who were supposed to uphold and implement the law of the land and were guidance and protectors of life and liberty of a common citizen.

    Counsel for the victim family stated that the accused is involved in abduction of an innocent person and thereafter staging a drama of fake encounter and the accused persons thus turned to be beasts rather than protectors of life and liberty of those for whom they were appointed so as such, the above named accused is not entitled to the concession of bail.

    “The offence is heinous and grave besides non-bailable in character, as such, the above named accused are not entitled to the concession of bail,” they pleaded.

    The court rejected the plea of the accused petitioner and stated that the discussion and the evidence available on record of the file as well as taking into consideration the conduct of the accused and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

    While rejecting the bail application of the accused, court stated that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.

    The court highlighted the plea of the counsel for the victim family that “the deceased killed in this encounter was actually the resident of the village of the accused and the said deceased who used to sell Dastarkhan sheets (dining cloth) on the Biscoe School pavements. It is from this place when he had been lifted by the police team. Thereafter he was kept in the SOG Camp at Manasbal and during these in between period the learned PP submitted that, “the wife of the said deceased approached the petitioner for tracing out her husband who was missing then and not returned to his house as the wife of the deceased never ever being the poor lady was having only the approach of the petitioner who was working as a police official and from the village of the said deceased. But the petitioner never bothered about the tears and cries of the wife of the deceased and cleverly carried forward the nefarious design and mode of committing this horrendous crime of murder”.

    The judge added ‘meaning thereby any concession of bail either on medical grounds or on other grounds at this stage of the trial definitely shaken the spine of the common man in the present setup of the criminal justice system. “Hence the bail application moved by the accused person under Section 439 Cr.P.C rejected,” the court observed.

    [ad_2]
    #Court #Rejects #Bail #Plea #Police #Driver #Fake #Encounter #Case

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )