Engr accused of spying for Pak seeks bail
Mumbai: A Thane-based engineer arrested for allegedly sharing sensitive information about warships and submarines with a Pakistani intelligence agent has sought bail, saying a prolonged incarceration would "prejudice his personal and professional life".
Ravindra Verma (27), who worked with a defence technology firm, was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad on May 28. He is currently in judicial custody. In his bail plea, Verma pleaded innocence, contending that the allegations "are subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt during trial". The probe is substantially complete and primary evidence, including mobile phone containing WhatsApp chats and audio files has been seized, hence his judicial custody was no longer necessary, the plea said.
pti
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Navy staffer arrested for spying for Pakistan during Operation Sindoor: Report
An employee posted at the Indian Navy's headquarters in Delhi has been arrested on charges of espionage, with investigators alleging that he was leaking sensitive defence information to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — including during the recently concluded Operation Sindoor. Navy clerk arrested for leaking sensitive information to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor,(X/@IndiaWarMonitor) The accused, Vishal Yadav, a clerk at the Navy HQ and a resident of Haryana, was taken into custody by the intelligence wing of the Rajasthan police following months of surveillance, reported NDTV. "The CID Intelligence unit of Rajasthan was constantly monitoring the espionage activities carried out by Pakistani intelligence agencies(ISI). During surveillance, they zeroed in on Yadav, who was in constant contact with a female handler of a Pakistani intelligence agency through social media,' the NDTV report quoted senior police officer Vishnukant Gupta. Yadav had reportedly shared confidential information related to naval operations and other defence establishments with a woman who identified herself as Priya Sharma, who was believed to be an ISI operative. Police said she paid him in return for sensitive information. According to the report, forensic examination of his cellphone revealed years of communication and data transfer, including during Operation Sindoor – a military operation by Indian on terror hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Pakistan 'spy' was paid via crypto trades Initial findings suggest Yadav was addicted to online gaming and had incurred significant financial losses. 'He was receiving money via cryptocurrency trading accounts and also directly in his bank accounts,' the report quoted Gupta as saying. Multiple intelligence agencies are interrogating the accused at the Central Interrogation Centre in Jaipur. Officials are probing the extent of the breach and whether others may have been involved in the espionage network.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court quashes dowry harassment case, flags misuse of Section 498-A
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside proceedings against a family of six in a dowry harassment case, terming the charges 'frivolous' and 'motivated'. The Court highlighted contradictions in the complainant's version and flagged serious flaws in the police investigation, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The case stemmed from an FIR registered by a woman who alleged cruelty and harassment for dowry after her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed she was driven out of her matrimonial home within two months and accused her husband and his family members of mental and physical abuse, including a demand for ₹20 lakh. However, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, after reviewing the chargesheet, found significant inconsistencies in the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant had suppressed her own employment details — she was working as a senior executive at a Pune-based health insurance company — while accusing the husband and his family of harassment and financial demands. The Judges observed that the couple had spent part of their short-lived marriage on a honeymoon in Manali and that the complainant's own travel records and admission contradicted several of her allegations. 'A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused; pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing a pillow on her face,' the Bench said, adding, 'The applicants are well-educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter.' Criticising the police investigation, the Bench noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations by visiting the matrimonial homes in Kharghar and Manmad. Instead, a panchnama was carried out at the complainant's father's house in Nanded with no meaningful corroboration of her claims. 'This is a classic example of misuse of Section 498-A,' the Bench declared. 'Nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigations in such cases. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.' The Court also noted that many of the statements recorded from the complainant's family appeared to be 'copy-paste' versions lacking substance or independent verification. Quashing the criminal proceedings, the Judges invoked their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterating that courts must intervene in cases where prosecution appears to be driven by vengeance or is manifestly groundless. 'The institution of criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive can destroy lives,' the Bench noted, emphasising the need for caution in both filing and investigating matrimonial complaints.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't summon lawyers for legal advice: SC
Direct summons by investigating agencies or the police to lawyers for advising their clients can 'shatter the core of legal independence' and constitute a 'serious interference with the administration of justice', the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, as it initiated suo motu proceedings to address the issue and formulate safeguards to protect the legal profession. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. (HT Photo) 'The legal profession is an integral component of the process of administration of justice. Counsels who are engaged in their legal practice have certain rights and privileges guaranteed because of the fact that they are legal professionals, and also due to statutory provisions. Permitting investigating agencies or police to directly summon defence counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice,' said a bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh. The development comes just days after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued, and subsequently withdrew, summons to two senior Supreme Court advocates, triggering widespread outrage over the perceived breach of lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. The court made strong observations during a hearing involving a Gujarat-based lawyer who was summoned by the police merely for securing bail for his client in a loan dispute case. The police summons, issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the SC/ST Cell in Ahmedabad, was upheld by the Gujarat high court, prompting the top court to stay the order and protect the lawyer from further coercive action. 'Summoning lawyers for advising clients can shatter the core of legal independence,' maintained the bench, adding that such practices, if allowed to persist, would have a chilling effect on legal professionals and impair the justice delivery system. 'This is not just about one lawyer. It is about protecting the spine of the legal system,' it emphasised. Justice Viswanathan remarked that it was essential to address this issue comprehensively, not just as a one-off incident, but to safeguard the legal profession and preserve the integrity of the justice system. 'Lawyers must be able to advise and represent clients without fear of being summoned or harassed. We are dealing with the very heart of judicial independence and the administration of justice,' the court said. It went on to frame two critical questions -- one, can the police summon a lawyer who has only advised a party in a case; and two, if there is more than advisory involvement, should judicial oversight be a precondition. To ensure a comprehensive and principled resolution, the court sought assistance from the attorney general, solicitor general, chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), and presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The matter has also been referred to Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai for appropriate orders on further listing. 'It is a matter which directly impinges the administration of justice,' the court noted. The top court's intervention comes just days after ED withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal in a separate case. The move followed an urgent representation by SCAORA to the CJI on June 20, flagging the ED's summons as a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. Venugopal, who was summoned to appear before ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on the afternoon of June 20, informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to ED's probe into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. Venugopal, in this instance, was the advocate-on-record for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar. ED had also summoned Datar earlier, but withdrew that notice too amid widespread criticism from the legal fraternity. In its letter to the CJI, SCAORA president Vipin Nair described the summons as 'a deeply disquieting development' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the core of the rule of law and the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated, urging the CJI to frame clear guidelines. The concern was echoed across the legal community. The Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution on June 17 condemning ED's actions as a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also held an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent amendments to the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to safeguard lawyer-client privilege. In a press statement issued on the evening of June 20, ED clarified that the summons had been issued in Venugopal's capacity as an independent director of Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL), not as a legal counsel, and said any further information would be sought through email. Crucially, ED also issued a circular directing all its field offices not to issue summons to advocates in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It mandated that in exceptional cases where the proviso to Section 132 may apply, prior approval from the ED director would be necessary before issuing such summons.
