News Analysis India

Tag: Bombay High Court

  • Mahadev Betting App Case: Actor Sahil Khan Arrested In Chhattisgarh, Remanded To Police Custody Until May 1 | People News

    Actor Sahil Khan and Fitness Influencer was arrested by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Mumbai Police Crime Branch in Chhattisgarh’s Jagdalpur yesterday in connection with the Mahadev Betting App scam following Mumbai Police’s 40-hour-long operation.

    He is charged alongside 31 others for promoting the app. Sahil Khan was produced in a court in Dadar and remanded to police custody until May 1.

    The Actor was arrested after the rejection of his Interim bail petition by the Bombay High Court, Sources Indicate he fled Mumbai after his post-petition was rejected. He has been remanded to four-days in Police custody.

    However, a single-judge bench of Justice SV Kotwal disagreed.

    “The entire operation is illegal. A huge amount is involved. Fictitious bank accounts are created. Different fake SIM cards are used in big numbers. The applicant is directly connected with the App ‘The Lion Book247,” Justice Kotwal said in his order, dismissing the plea. The bench also noted that EOW’s investigation had revealed that there were as many as 67 betting websites, with each being controlled from “foreign destinations.”

    “He had been on the run for 40 hours, from Goa to Karnataka, then Hyderabad, and finally caught in Jagdalpur. We will produce him before a local court,” Joint Commissioner (JCP), Mumbai Crime Branch, said on Sunday.

    #WATCH | Actor Sahil Khan brought to Mumbai from Chhattisgarh. He has been arrested by the Mumbai Crime Branch’s SIT in connection with the Mahadev Betting App case.

    “I believe in the judiciary of the country,” he says pic.twitter.com/HirOzizuXb — ANI (@ANI) April 28, 2024

    Who is Sahil Khan? The 47- year old Actor is known for his role in movies like ‘Style’ ‘Excuse Me’, ‘Aladdin’, and ‘FALTU’. He is also a fitness enthusiast and entrepreneur, sharing fitness content on his YouTube channel, He has over 2.8 million subscribers. He married Iranian-born Norwegian actress Negar Khan in 2003 but the couple parted ways two years later. About the Mahadev Betting App? The Mahadev Betting App uses paid advertisements on social media platforms to encourage individuals to place bets on players and outcomes of various sports such as IPL Matches, Football, Tennis, and more.

    The App is operated by Chhattisgarh’s Saurabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal from Dubai, Customers of the app were given two numbers one for depositing money for the betting and the other for cashing out the winnings.

    These accounts were fraudulently opened, and all bets were manipulated to ensure the company never incurred losses.

    Although many new users experienced quick gains, they ultimately suffered significant losses in the long run. Actors Ranbir Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor, and Tamannaah Bhatia have been summoned to question their promotion of the betting app and its affiliated companies.

    The Actor’s Connection To This App Scam

    The Influencer is accused of endorsing betting apps such as Lion Book and Lotus 24/7, which have connections to the Mahadev betting app on various platforms. Police allege he also owns a stake in the above app.

    Besides the three others, he was summoned by the Mumbai Crime Branch for questioning in December 2023 regarding their alleged role in promoting the app.

    During the Investigation, The Police found that the actor promoted the Lion Book app and participated in their events.

    However, the Actor has said that he has no direct connection with the gambling platform.

    After the Special Investigation Team questioned him, Mr Khan approached the court for anticipatory bail.

    The SIT is investigating illegal transactions between financial and real estate firms and the promoters of the ₹ 15,000 crore Mahadev betting app.

    They are also conducting searches for all mobile phones, laptops and other electronic devices linked to the actor are also being searched.


  • HC restrains Maha cops from holding mock drills showing ‘terrorists’ as belonging to particular group

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has in an interim order restrained the police from conducting mock drills depicting persons of a particular community as terrorists.

    It was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Sayed Usama alleging that mock drills being conducted by police department depicted attire and slogans to indicate the terrorists were Muslims.

    A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and A S Chapalgaonkar on February 3 directed the public prosecutor to apprise the court about the guidelines for holding mock drills.

    The HC, while posting the matter for further hearing on February 10, said, “Till the next date, no mock drill shall be conducted depicting persons of a particular community as terrorists.”

    Mock drills are conducted by the police at district levels in order to increase efficiency of the security force and to be better prepared for emergencies, including terror attacks.

    The petitioner claimed such mock drills showed bias and prejudice against the Muslim community and sent a message that terrorists belong only to a particular religion.

    The PIL took exception to three mock drills held at Ahmednagar, Chandrapur and Aurangabad districts where policemen, who played the part of terrorists in the mock drill, were dressed as men from the Muslim community.

    “The petitioner, who is a social activist, apparently a Muslim, has raked up the issue involving public interest. He takes exception to the conduct of mock drills by the police department depicting from attire and the slogan-shouting as if to indicate that the terrorist is a Muslim,” the court said.

    MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has in an interim order restrained the police from conducting mock drills depicting persons of a particular community as terrorists.

    It was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Sayed Usama alleging that mock drills being conducted by police department depicted attire and slogans to indicate the terrorists were Muslims.

    A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and A S Chapalgaonkar on February 3 directed the public prosecutor to apprise the court about the guidelines for holding mock drills.

    The HC, while posting the matter for further hearing on February 10, said, “Till the next date, no mock drill shall be conducted depicting persons of a particular community as terrorists.”

    Mock drills are conducted by the police at district levels in order to increase efficiency of the security force and to be better prepared for emergencies, including terror attacks.

    The petitioner claimed such mock drills showed bias and prejudice against the Muslim community and sent a message that terrorists belong only to a particular religion.

    The PIL took exception to three mock drills held at Ahmednagar, Chandrapur and Aurangabad districts where policemen, who played the part of terrorists in the mock drill, were dressed as men from the Muslim community.

    “The petitioner, who is a social activist, apparently a Muslim, has raked up the issue involving public interest. He takes exception to the conduct of mock drills by the police department depicting from attire and the slogan-shouting as if to indicate that the terrorist is a Muslim,” the court said.

  • Bank loan fraud case: HC grants interim bail to Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot 

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court granted interim bail to Videocon Group founder Venugopal Dhoot on Friday, nearly a month after he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case.

    A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and P K Chavan granted bail to Dhoot on a surety of Rs one lakh.

    The court permitted him to furnish cash bail and then deposit the surety amount two weeks thereafter.

    The bench also refused the CBI’s request to stay its order so that it could approach the Supreme Court in appeal.

    The court also dismissed an application filed by an advocate seeking to intervene in the matter and for the bench to recall its earlier order granting bail to two other accused in the case – Chanda Kochhar, former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the ICICI Bank, and her husband Deepak Kochhar.

    The bench imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the advocate. Dhoot had approached the high court on January 10 after the same bench granted bail to the Kochhars.

    The couple was arrested on December 23, 2022.

    Dhoot’s advocate Sandeep Laddha had argued that Dhoot’s arrest was unwarranted as he had cooperated in the probe.

    ALSO READ | Videocon’s Dhoot says his arrest was unnecessary; CBI says he was evading probe

    The CBI, however, opposed the same saying the Videocon Group founder had attempted to avoid the probe and hence the arrest was legal.

    The HC had heard the arguments and closed it for orders on January 13.

    Dhoot, presently in judicial custody, had sought the HC to quash the CBI FIR and sought to be released on bail by way of an interim order.

    In his plea, Dhoot termed his arrest by CBI as “arbitrary, illegal, done without following due procedure of law and in gross violation of section 41 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates for a notice to be issued to accused to join the probe and to make an arrest only if absolutely necessary”.

    In its order granting interim bail to the Kochhars, the HC had come down heavily on the CBI for making the arrest in a “casual and mechanical” manner and without application of mind.

    The CBI has alleged that private sector lender ICICI Bank had sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to the companies of Videocon Group promoted by Dhoot in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines, and credit policy of the bank.

    ALSO READ | Loan fraud case: Chanda Kochhar, husband Deepak Kochhar released from jail

    The CBI had named Chanda Kochhar, Deepak Kochhar as well as Dhoot along with Nupower Renewables (NRL) managed by Deepak Kochhar, Supreme Energy, Videocon International Electronics Ltd and Videocon Industries Ltd as accused in the FIR registered in 2019 under Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    The central agency has alleged that the ICICI Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to these companies in violation of norms.

    It further alleged that as a part of quid pro quo, Dhoot made an investment of Rs 64 crore in Nupower Renewables through Supreme Energy Pvt Ltd (SEPL), and transferred SEPL to Pinnacle Energy Trust managed by Deepak Kochhar through a circuitous route between 2010 and 2012.

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court granted interim bail to Videocon Group founder Venugopal Dhoot on Friday, nearly a month after he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case.

    A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and P K Chavan granted bail to Dhoot on a surety of Rs one lakh.

    The court permitted him to furnish cash bail and then deposit the surety amount two weeks thereafter.

    The bench also refused the CBI’s request to stay its order so that it could approach the Supreme Court in appeal.

    The court also dismissed an application filed by an advocate seeking to intervene in the matter and for the bench to recall its earlier order granting bail to two other accused in the case – Chanda Kochhar, former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the ICICI Bank, and her husband Deepak Kochhar.

    The bench imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the advocate. Dhoot had approached the high court on January 10 after the same bench granted bail to the Kochhars.

    The couple was arrested on December 23, 2022.

    Dhoot’s advocate Sandeep Laddha had argued that Dhoot’s arrest was unwarranted as he had cooperated in the probe.

    ALSO READ | Videocon’s Dhoot says his arrest was unnecessary; CBI says he was evading probe

    The CBI, however, opposed the same saying the Videocon Group founder had attempted to avoid the probe and hence the arrest was legal.

    The HC had heard the arguments and closed it for orders on January 13.

    Dhoot, presently in judicial custody, had sought the HC to quash the CBI FIR and sought to be released on bail by way of an interim order.

    In his plea, Dhoot termed his arrest by CBI as “arbitrary, illegal, done without following due procedure of law and in gross violation of section 41 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates for a notice to be issued to accused to join the probe and to make an arrest only if absolutely necessary”.

    In its order granting interim bail to the Kochhars, the HC had come down heavily on the CBI for making the arrest in a “casual and mechanical” manner and without application of mind.

    The CBI has alleged that private sector lender ICICI Bank had sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to the companies of Videocon Group promoted by Dhoot in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines, and credit policy of the bank.

    ALSO READ | Loan fraud case: Chanda Kochhar, husband Deepak Kochhar released from jail

    The CBI had named Chanda Kochhar, Deepak Kochhar as well as Dhoot along with Nupower Renewables (NRL) managed by Deepak Kochhar, Supreme Energy, Videocon International Electronics Ltd and Videocon Industries Ltd as accused in the FIR registered in 2019 under Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    The central agency has alleged that the ICICI Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to these companies in violation of norms.

    It further alleged that as a part of quid pro quo, Dhoot made an investment of Rs 64 crore in Nupower Renewables through Supreme Energy Pvt Ltd (SEPL), and transferred SEPL to Pinnacle Energy Trust managed by Deepak Kochhar through a circuitous route between 2010 and 2012.

  • Bombay HC slams Maharashtra on posts for transgenders, says state govt in ‘deep slumber’

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday rapped the Maharashtra government for being in “deep slumber” and “lagging behind” on the issue of making provision to create posts for transgenders under the home department.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja warned of halting the entire recruitment process if the government does not relent and at least keep two posts vacant for the two transgenders who had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

    The court was hearing a petition filed by the Maharashtra government against the tribunal’s order directing it to create a provision for transgenders in the application form for posts under the home department.

    The state government, in its petition, had claimed it was “extremely difficult” to implement the tribunal’s direction as no policy regarding special provisions for the recruitment of transgenders had been formed as yet.

    The bench noted the Supreme Court, in 2014, directed all state governments to frame a policy to include transgenders in all public posts.

    “For seven years, this government is in deep slumber. You (government) don’t perform your functions and aggrieved people have to then come to courts. When courts pass orders then we are accused of overreaching. The MAT has done the right thing,” Chief Justice Datta said.

    The bench was informed by advocate Kranti L C that 11 state governments have already made provisions pursuant to the SC order.

    “Why should Maharashtra lag behind? We want Maharashtra to also do it,” CJ Datta said.

    “Think of progressing the society we are in. We feel if someone is lagging behind, why shouldn’t we come to their rescue. God has not been kind to everybody. We need to be kind,” CJ Datta said.

    The bench then said the government cannot have it both ways.

    “You (government) won’t frame the rules and you won’t include them (transgenders). Then halt the entire recruitment process. We will stay the process and then you will be forced to frame rules,” the court said.

    Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni told the court the government was not against transgenders but was facing practical and legal difficulties.

    The bench directed Kumbhakoni to take instructions from the government on whether it was willing to keep two posts vacant for the transgenders who approached MAT and then frame rules for future recruitments. It then posted the matter for hearing on Friday.

    The MAT, on November 14, directed the state government to create a third option for transgenders, after the two options of male and female, in the application form for all recruitments under the home department.

    The tribunal had also said the government should fix a criteria for physical standards and tests for transgenders.

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday rapped the Maharashtra government for being in “deep slumber” and “lagging behind” on the issue of making provision to create posts for transgenders under the home department.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja warned of halting the entire recruitment process if the government does not relent and at least keep two posts vacant for the two transgenders who had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

    The court was hearing a petition filed by the Maharashtra government against the tribunal’s order directing it to create a provision for transgenders in the application form for posts under the home department.

    The state government, in its petition, had claimed it was “extremely difficult” to implement the tribunal’s direction as no policy regarding special provisions for the recruitment of transgenders had been formed as yet.

    The bench noted the Supreme Court, in 2014, directed all state governments to frame a policy to include transgenders in all public posts.

    “For seven years, this government is in deep slumber. You (government) don’t perform your functions and aggrieved people have to then come to courts. When courts pass orders then we are accused of overreaching. The MAT has done the right thing,” Chief Justice Datta said.

    The bench was informed by advocate Kranti L C that 11 state governments have already made provisions pursuant to the SC order.

    “Why should Maharashtra lag behind? We want Maharashtra to also do it,” CJ Datta said.

    “Think of progressing the society we are in. We feel if someone is lagging behind, why shouldn’t we come to their rescue. God has not been kind to everybody. We need to be kind,” CJ Datta said.

    The bench then said the government cannot have it both ways.

    “You (government) won’t frame the rules and you won’t include them (transgenders). Then halt the entire recruitment process. We will stay the process and then you will be forced to frame rules,” the court said.

    Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni told the court the government was not against transgenders but was facing practical and legal difficulties.

    The bench directed Kumbhakoni to take instructions from the government on whether it was willing to keep two posts vacant for the transgenders who approached MAT and then frame rules for future recruitments. It then posted the matter for hearing on Friday.

    The MAT, on November 14, directed the state government to create a third option for transgenders, after the two options of male and female, in the application form for all recruitments under the home department.

    The tribunal had also said the government should fix a criteria for physical standards and tests for transgenders.

  • Bombay HC refuses urgent stay on bail to Sanjay Raut; to hear ED plea on Nov 10

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to grant urgent stay on the bail granted to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut by a lower court in an alleged money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

    Stating that it can not pass such an order without hearing both the parties, the high court posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.

    A special court earlier in the day granted bail to Raut and co-accused Pravin Raut while rejecting the ED’s request to stay the effect of the order till Friday.

    The Central agency then moved the high court and sought an interim stay.

    Justice Bharati Dangre, however, refused to grant such a relief to the ED.

    “I have not even looked at the order. I don’t know on what grounds bail has been granted. I don’t know on what grounds you (the ED) have challenged the order. How can I grant a stay now without even hearing the parties even if I have to make a prima facie order now,” she said.

    READ HERE | Tiger is back, says Uddhav-led Sena faction as court grants bail to MP Sanjay Raut

    The court said it would hear the central agency’s application seeking cancellation of the bail on Thursday.

    “If after hearing, I pass an order cancelling the bail then the accused persons can be taken back in custody,” Justice Dangre added.

    The high court also asked under what legal provision it has the power to stay an order of bail.

    Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the ED, sought that the bail order be stayed till Thursday.

    To this, the court said there was no guarantee that hearing on the application would be concluded in one day.

    “The lower court took one month to hear the bail pleas and pass an order. You expect me to decide now? I don’t want any injustice done to you (ED) or them (Sanjay Raut and Pravin Raut). When you come on cancellation of bail the powers of court are limited,” Justice Dangre said.

    The judge also noted that the ED application was filed under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cancellation of bail) and not under section 482 (quashing of order).

    “Only under section 482, the high court has inherent powers to suspend effect on bail orders,” the court noted.

    Senior counsel Aabad Ponda, appearing for Pravin Raut, opposed the ED’s application.

    The accused were not going to flee if they were released, he said.

    “One of the accused (Sanjay Raut) is a parliamentarian. The accused have roots in society. The lower court has imposed certain conditions while granting bail. No one is going to run away,” Ponda said.

    The ED arrested Sanjay Raut, a Rajya Sabha MP, on July 31 for his alleged role in financial irregularities in connection with the redevelopment of the Patra Chawl tenement in suburban Goregaon.

    He is currently in judicial custody and lodged at Arthur Road Jail in central Mumbai.

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to grant urgent stay on the bail granted to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut by a lower court in an alleged money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

    Stating that it can not pass such an order without hearing both the parties, the high court posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.

    A special court earlier in the day granted bail to Raut and co-accused Pravin Raut while rejecting the ED’s request to stay the effect of the order till Friday.

    The Central agency then moved the high court and sought an interim stay.

    Justice Bharati Dangre, however, refused to grant such a relief to the ED.

    “I have not even looked at the order. I don’t know on what grounds bail has been granted. I don’t know on what grounds you (the ED) have challenged the order. How can I grant a stay now without even hearing the parties even if I have to make a prima facie order now,” she said.

    READ HERE | Tiger is back, says Uddhav-led Sena faction as court grants bail to MP Sanjay Raut

    The court said it would hear the central agency’s application seeking cancellation of the bail on Thursday.

    “If after hearing, I pass an order cancelling the bail then the accused persons can be taken back in custody,” Justice Dangre added.

    The high court also asked under what legal provision it has the power to stay an order of bail.

    Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the ED, sought that the bail order be stayed till Thursday.

    To this, the court said there was no guarantee that hearing on the application would be concluded in one day.

    “The lower court took one month to hear the bail pleas and pass an order. You expect me to decide now? I don’t want any injustice done to you (ED) or them (Sanjay Raut and Pravin Raut). When you come on cancellation of bail the powers of court are limited,” Justice Dangre said.

    The judge also noted that the ED application was filed under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cancellation of bail) and not under section 482 (quashing of order).

    “Only under section 482, the high court has inherent powers to suspend effect on bail orders,” the court noted.

    Senior counsel Aabad Ponda, appearing for Pravin Raut, opposed the ED’s application.

    The accused were not going to flee if they were released, he said.

    “One of the accused (Sanjay Raut) is a parliamentarian. The accused have roots in society. The lower court has imposed certain conditions while granting bail. No one is going to run away,” Ponda said.

    The ED arrested Sanjay Raut, a Rajya Sabha MP, on July 31 for his alleged role in financial irregularities in connection with the redevelopment of the Patra Chawl tenement in suburban Goregaon.

    He is currently in judicial custody and lodged at Arthur Road Jail in central Mumbai.

  • Juvenile directed to be tried as adult in a case can seek benefit of provisions of JJ Act: Bombay HC 

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Merely because a juvenile is directed to be tried as an adult in a case does not mean he or she can be denied the benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the Bombay High Court said while granting bail to a youngster in a murder case.

    A single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre on October 21 granted bail to a youngster arrested in 2020 by Borivali police for murder.

    The accused was 17 years old at the time of the offence.

    The accused sought bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which states that any child in conflict with law ought to be released on bail notwithstanding any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and placed under the supervision of a probation officer or any family member.

    The accused approached the high court after a special children’s court rejected his bail plea on the ground that the Juvenile Justice Board had directed him to be tried as an adult in the case and hence, he could not seek the benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

    The high court, however, refused to accept this and noted that though the accused had been ordered to be tried as an adult, he was still a juvenile.

    “Merely because he is directed to be tried as an adult, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act,” Justice Dangre said.

    “The Juvenile Justice Act focuses on a principle of presumption of innocence and on the principle of best interest as well as principle of repatriation and restoration, by virtue of which, the applicant, who is a juvenile, has a right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to be restored in the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in,” the order said.

    The high court in its order noted that the Juvenile Justice Act was a beneficial piece of legislation with the objective of providing care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles.

    According to the prosecution, on March 12, 2020, the youngster along with his friend stabbed an acquaintance with whom they had a dispute.

    The police opposed his bail plea and argued that at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was 17 years, 11 months and 24 days old and was mentally mature to understand the consequences of his action.

    Justice Dangre also relied on the report submitted by the youth’s probation officer who said that this was the first time the accused was involved in a criminal act and that he was under the influence of narcotic substances at the time.

    The report further stated that the accused was attending counselling and his father was ready to take his custody and ensure his well-being.

    “The report of the probation officer has recorded that the child in conflict with law (accused youth) has committed the offence under the influence of a drug and in a fit of anger and he had no intention to kill the victim, but his intention was only to beat him,” the high court said in its order.

    The youngster had studied till Class 10 and was working to earn money, it added.

    “The probation officer report also reveals that at present he (accused) was learning carpentry work. He is also attending counselling sessions. The remark of the probation officer is that the overall behaviour of the child is noticed to be good,” the order said.

    The court ordered for the youngster to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and ordered him to report to the probation officer once every two months.

    MUMBAI: Merely because a juvenile is directed to be tried as an adult in a case does not mean he or she can be denied the benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the Bombay High Court said while granting bail to a youngster in a murder case.

    A single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre on October 21 granted bail to a youngster arrested in 2020 by Borivali police for murder.

    The accused was 17 years old at the time of the offence.

    The accused sought bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which states that any child in conflict with law ought to be released on bail notwithstanding any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and placed under the supervision of a probation officer or any family member.

    The accused approached the high court after a special children’s court rejected his bail plea on the ground that the Juvenile Justice Board had directed him to be tried as an adult in the case and hence, he could not seek the benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

    The high court, however, refused to accept this and noted that though the accused had been ordered to be tried as an adult, he was still a juvenile.

    “Merely because he is directed to be tried as an adult, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act,” Justice Dangre said.

    “The Juvenile Justice Act focuses on a principle of presumption of innocence and on the principle of best interest as well as principle of repatriation and restoration, by virtue of which, the applicant, who is a juvenile, has a right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to be restored in the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in,” the order said.

    The high court in its order noted that the Juvenile Justice Act was a beneficial piece of legislation with the objective of providing care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles.

    According to the prosecution, on March 12, 2020, the youngster along with his friend stabbed an acquaintance with whom they had a dispute.

    The police opposed his bail plea and argued that at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was 17 years, 11 months and 24 days old and was mentally mature to understand the consequences of his action.

    Justice Dangre also relied on the report submitted by the youth’s probation officer who said that this was the first time the accused was involved in a criminal act and that he was under the influence of narcotic substances at the time.

    The report further stated that the accused was attending counselling and his father was ready to take his custody and ensure his well-being.

    “The report of the probation officer has recorded that the child in conflict with law (accused youth) has committed the offence under the influence of a drug and in a fit of anger and he had no intention to kill the victim, but his intention was only to beat him,” the high court said in its order.

    The youngster had studied till Class 10 and was working to earn money, it added.

    “The probation officer report also reveals that at present he (accused) was learning carpentry work. He is also attending counselling sessions. The remark of the probation officer is that the overall behaviour of the child is noticed to be good,” the order said.

    The court ordered for the youngster to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 and ordered him to report to the probation officer once every two months.

  • Godrej & Boyce creating unnecessary hurdles in land acquisition for bullet train project: Maha govt to HC

    The company and the government have been embroiled in a legal dispute since 2019 over acquisition of the company-owned land in suburban Vikhroli for the bullet train project.

  • Elgar Parishad case: Bombay HC refuses bail to activist Jyoti Jagtap

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activist Jyoti Jagtap, arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, saying the National Investigation Agency’s case against her was “prima facie true”.

    The NIA had alleged that Jagtap was spreading activities of the banned outfit CPI (Maoist) in urban areas and that she made efforts to mobilise Dalits at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, to protest against the government and to create hatred against it.

    A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and M N Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by 34-year-old Jagtap, challenging a February 2022 order of a special court refusing to grant her bail.

    “We are of the opinion that the NIA case is prima facie true. Hence the appeal stands dismissed,” the court said.

    Jagtap, accused of singing and raising provocative slogans at the Elgar Parishad conclave along with other members of the Kabir Kala Manch, was arrested in the case in September 2020 and has been lodged at the Byculla women’s prison in Mumbai since then.

    According to the investigators, provocative speeches were allegedly made at the Elgar Parishad conclave on December 31, 2017, triggering violence at Koregaon-Bhima in Maharashtra’s Pune district on January 1, 2018.

    The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case. According to the NIA, Kabir Kala Manch is a frontal group for the banned terror outfit CPI (Maoist).

    While Jagtap, a singer-cum-activist, claimed she was innocent and the NIA failed to establish any prima facie evidence against her, the agency said Jagtap had made efforts to mobilise Dalits at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, to protest against the government and to create hatred against it.

    The NIA had also alleged that Jagtap was spreading activities of the CPI (Maoist) in urban areas.

    The central probe agency had claimed Jagtap was an active member of the CPI (Maoist) and that she was spreading activities of the banned “terror group” in urban areas and had undergone training for using weapons and explosives.

    However, Jagtap argued that the Kabir Kala Manch was a cultural group which tried to bring communal harmony and secularism back into Indian society through music and poetry.

    Out of 16 people arrested in the case, Father Stan Swamy died at a private hospital here last year while in judicial custody.

    Two other accused – Sudha Bharadwaj and Varavara Rao – are out on bail, while the others are still in jail

    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activist Jyoti Jagtap, arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, saying the National Investigation Agency’s case against her was “prima facie true”.

    The NIA had alleged that Jagtap was spreading activities of the banned outfit CPI (Maoist) in urban areas and that she made efforts to mobilise Dalits at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, to protest against the government and to create hatred against it.

    A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and M N Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by 34-year-old Jagtap, challenging a February 2022 order of a special court refusing to grant her bail.

    “We are of the opinion that the NIA case is prima facie true. Hence the appeal stands dismissed,” the court said.

    Jagtap, accused of singing and raising provocative slogans at the Elgar Parishad conclave along with other members of the Kabir Kala Manch, was arrested in the case in September 2020 and has been lodged at the Byculla women’s prison in Mumbai since then.

    According to the investigators, provocative speeches were allegedly made at the Elgar Parishad conclave on December 31, 2017, triggering violence at Koregaon-Bhima in Maharashtra’s Pune district on January 1, 2018.

    The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case. According to the NIA, Kabir Kala Manch is a frontal group for the banned terror outfit CPI (Maoist).

    While Jagtap, a singer-cum-activist, claimed she was innocent and the NIA failed to establish any prima facie evidence against her, the agency said Jagtap had made efforts to mobilise Dalits at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, to protest against the government and to create hatred against it.

    The NIA had also alleged that Jagtap was spreading activities of the CPI (Maoist) in urban areas.

    The central probe agency had claimed Jagtap was an active member of the CPI (Maoist) and that she was spreading activities of the banned “terror group” in urban areas and had undergone training for using weapons and explosives.

    However, Jagtap argued that the Kabir Kala Manch was a cultural group which tried to bring communal harmony and secularism back into Indian society through music and poetry.

    Out of 16 people arrested in the case, Father Stan Swamy died at a private hospital here last year while in judicial custody.

    Two other accused – Sudha Bharadwaj and Varavara Rao – are out on bail, while the others are still in jail

  • Maoist-links case: GN Saibaba to stay in jail as SC suspends Bombay HC acquittal order 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the Bombay High Court order acquitting former Delhi University (DU) professor G N Saibaba and others in a Maoist-links case.

    The high court acquitted Saibaba and others in the case on Friday.

    An apex court bench of justices M R Shah and Bela M Trivedi, which sat on a non-working day to hear the matter, also rejected Saibaba’s request for putting him under house arrest in view of his physical disability and health conditions.

    It stayed the release of all the accused in the case, including Saibaba, from jail, as directed by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.

    It sought responses from Saibaba and the other accused on a plea moved by the Maharashtra government against the high court order.

    More than eight years after his arrest, the Bombay High Court acquitted Saibaba on Friday and ordered his release from jail, noting that the sanction order issued to prosecute the accused in the case under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was “bad in law and invalid”.

    The Nagpur bench of the high court allowed Saibaba’s appeal, challenging a 2017 order of the trial court that convicted him in the case and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

    Apart from Saibaba, the court acquitted Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote (both farmers), Hem Keshavdatta Mishra (student) and Prashant Sanglikar (journalist), who were sentenced to life imprisonment, and Vijay Tirki (labourer), who was sentenced to 10 years in jail.

    Narote died during the pendency of the appeal.

    Saibaba, 52, who is wheelchair-bound due to a physical disability, is currently lodged in the Nagpur central prison.

    He was arrested in February 2014.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the Bombay High Court order acquitting former Delhi University (DU) professor G N Saibaba and others in a Maoist-links case.

    The high court acquitted Saibaba and others in the case on Friday.

    An apex court bench of justices M R Shah and Bela M Trivedi, which sat on a non-working day to hear the matter, also rejected Saibaba’s request for putting him under house arrest in view of his physical disability and health conditions.

    It stayed the release of all the accused in the case, including Saibaba, from jail, as directed by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.

    It sought responses from Saibaba and the other accused on a plea moved by the Maharashtra government against the high court order.

    More than eight years after his arrest, the Bombay High Court acquitted Saibaba on Friday and ordered his release from jail, noting that the sanction order issued to prosecute the accused in the case under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was “bad in law and invalid”.

    The Nagpur bench of the high court allowed Saibaba’s appeal, challenging a 2017 order of the trial court that convicted him in the case and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

    Apart from Saibaba, the court acquitted Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote (both farmers), Hem Keshavdatta Mishra (student) and Prashant Sanglikar (journalist), who were sentenced to life imprisonment, and Vijay Tirki (labourer), who was sentenced to 10 years in jail.

    Narote died during the pendency of the appeal.

    Saibaba, 52, who is wheelchair-bound due to a physical disability, is currently lodged in the Nagpur central prison.

    He was arrested in February 2014.

  • SC to hear Maharashtra govt’s appeal against acquittal of ex-DU professor G N Saibaba on Saturday

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a special sitting on Saturday to hear Maharashtra’s plea against the Bombay High Court order acquitting former Delhi University Professor G N Saibaba in a case relating to his alleged Maoist links.

    A bench of Justice M R Shah and Justice Bela M Trivedi is likely to hear the matter at 11 am. On Friday, the top court had refused to stay the Bombay High Court order.

    Following the High Court acquitting Saibaba, the Maharashtra government swiftly moved the apex court seeking a stay on the order which was declined.

    The top court, however, allowed Maharashtra to move an application before the registry requesting an urgent listing of the matter.

    A bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli had told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing and sought a stay on the verdict, that the court can not stay the acquittal order as the parties are not before it.

    More than eight years after his arrest, the Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted Saibaba and ordered his release from jail, noting that the sanction order issued to prosecute the accused in the case under the stringent provisions of the UAPA was “bad in law and invalid”.

    The Nagpur bench of the high court allowed the appeal filed by Saibaba challenging a 2017 order of the trial court convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a special sitting on Saturday to hear Maharashtra’s plea against the Bombay High Court order acquitting former Delhi University Professor G N Saibaba in a case relating to his alleged Maoist links.

    A bench of Justice M R Shah and Justice Bela M Trivedi is likely to hear the matter at 11 am. On Friday, the top court had refused to stay the Bombay High Court order.

    Following the High Court acquitting Saibaba, the Maharashtra government swiftly moved the apex court seeking a stay on the order which was declined.

    The top court, however, allowed Maharashtra to move an application before the registry requesting an urgent listing of the matter.

    A bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli had told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter for urgent listing and sought a stay on the verdict, that the court can not stay the acquittal order as the parties are not before it.

    More than eight years after his arrest, the Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted Saibaba and ordered his release from jail, noting that the sanction order issued to prosecute the accused in the case under the stringent provisions of the UAPA was “bad in law and invalid”.

    The Nagpur bench of the high court allowed the appeal filed by Saibaba challenging a 2017 order of the trial court convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment.