logo
High Court verdict on batch of petitions filed in 2006 Mumbai train blasts today

High Court verdict on batch of petitions filed in 2006 Mumbai train blasts today

India Today3 days ago
More than 19 years after the Mumbai train bombings on July 11, 2006, the Bombay High Court is scheduled to pass the judgement on 11 appeals filed by the state as well as the convicts in the case on Monday.On July 11, 2006, major explosions at seven locations on Mumbai's suburban rail network in a span of 11 minutes claimed 189 lives and injured 827 commuters.advertisementWhile 13 accused were arrested, 15 others were declared wanted, some allegedly in Pakistan. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), filing the chargesheet in November 2006.
In 2015, the trial court convicted 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death, while the remaining seven were sentenced to life imprisonment.As per the law, the state government then filed a petition in the High Court seeking confirmation of the death sentences. The accused also filed appeals challenging their convictions and sentences.While the state had filed for confirmation of death sentences in 2015, the appeals were filed between 2019 and 2023.In spite of the appeals being filed, they remained unheard of for a long time as the evidence was voluminous and one division bench of the High Court had to dedicatedly hear only this case.Thus, the appeals came up before many benches but could not be heard. Finally, one of the convicts in the case, Ehtesham siddiqui, filed a plea seeking expeditious hearing of the appeal.Following that, a special bench was constituted which heard the appeals for almost six months and wrote the judgements for the last six months.- Ends
IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother

The HC prioritised the best interests of the boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing a child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances. Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years. A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding. Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care. Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent. The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody. Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates

News18

time2 hours ago

  • News18

SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates

The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

ATS makes ninth arrest in gun licence scam
ATS makes ninth arrest in gun licence scam

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

ATS makes ninth arrest in gun licence scam

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on Tuesday arrested Sachin Gupta, a resident of Etah in Uttar Pradesh, in connection with the bogus gun licence racket that was recently busted by the agency. Gupta is the ninth person arrested in the case, which involves illegal procurement and distribution of firearms using fake arms licenses issued in Uttar Pradesh. According to ATS officers, Gupta is the owner of JP Gun House in Etah, and allegedly facilitated the sale of weapons to the accused without verification. Probe revealed that weapons were procured from JP Gun House using forged documents, and fake signatures were entered in the gun register to show delivery of firearms. Despite being aware of the forgery, Gupta allegedly continued to supply arms. The FIR in the case was originally filed on July 12, against seven accused after ATS recovered seven weapons and 285 live rounds from them. All of them were booked under sections of BNS and the Arms Act. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad Gupta was previously booked under the Arms Act by Delhi Police's Special

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store