Lawyer daughter takes on IG dad in court, returns job to sacked constable
Here's how it all happened.
Lawyer Anura Singh and her father, former IG of Bareilly range, Dr Rakesh Singh, found themselves facing each other in a courtroom tussle over the fate of a UP police head constable who was accused of molesting a minor and terminated from service. Anura, practising at the Allahabad High Court, not only presented her case successfully but also got her client, Tofeek Ahmad, reinstated.
The father and daughter insist there was no personal clash.
"There was none," Anura told TOI on Saturday. "My dad acted as a govt representative, and I as a lawyer. UP police policy is clear: an officer's conduct must not compromise the department's reputation, and this case involved the Pocso Act. As the appellate authority, he had the power to deny reinstatement, but the HC stands above any govt office, which is why we sought and got relief."
She added: "We were both just doing our jobs.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Emergency Generators in Santander De Quilichao: (Prices May Surprise You)
Emergency Generator | Search Ads
Search Now
Undo
Even though my father represented the govt's side and I stood at the opposite end, I fulfilled my duty and secured my client's reinstatement orders. The compliance will now be sent to SSP Bareilly, following which, my client will officially regain his position." The HC order came out on July 31 and it was available earlier in the week.
Singh added: "I'm proud of her. Anura performed her work in a professional capacity, and I stayed within the legal framework.
I've told her to keep working hard, as she has a long and promising career ahead of her."
The case itself dates back to Jan 2023 when Ahmad was arrested for allegedly molesting a 17-year-old girl, a BSF jawan's daughter, aboard the Triveni Express. Following a complaint, Ahmad was suspended, and after a departmental probe, IG Singh (now retired) ordered his termination. Though later acquitted by a lower court due to "lapses" in investigation, Ahmad's plea for reinstatement was rejected by Singh in his official capacity.
Unaware of her family connection, Ahmad approached Anura for legal help. She agreed and took on the case, arguing that the termination was "flawed". The HC agreed, quashing both the inquiry report and the disciplinary action that had followed.
Ahmad is both ecstatic and flabbergasted. Speaking warmly of his "saviour", he said, "I never knew the lawyer defending me was the daughter of the officer who'd ordered my dismissal. She put truth above family ties and upheld her duty to the law. She saved my job..."
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Raksha Bandhan wishes
,
messages
and
quotes
!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC slaps fine of ₹25,000 for ‘false' petition; cites suppression of facts
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court, on August 1, slapped a ₹25,000 fine on a man for filing a false petition where he claimed he was illegally arrested and was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Based on his medical records, the court noted that he was never in police custody. HC slaps fine of ₹ 25,000 for 'false' petition; cites suppression of facts Ashish Virendra Pratap Singh, claimed that he has been falsely implicated by Devendra Jagdish Singh for offences under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable securities and wills), 471 (using forged document as genuine) and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. He told the court that the FIR was registered on January 16, 2025 at the Mumbra Police Station, Thane, where Singh was named the co-accused. In Singh's petition he alleged that the police arrested him on January 17, and he was taken to various hospitals for medical examinations and routine check ups while he was still in police custody. His advocate Ashok Dubey told the court that the arrest was illegal, and Singh had not been produced before the magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period following his arrest. Dubey added that this was a violation of his fundamental right, and demanded the court to offer him relief and order the police not to further arrest him. However, additional public prosecutor SV Gavand opposed the petition and asked for it to be dismissed with a heavy penalty. Gavand told the court that Singh had suppressed vital facts and not mentioned that he had appealed for anticipatory bail, a plea that was rejected on June 25. He added, 'This petition, filed on July 14, makes no disclosure of this crucial development.' Gavand told the court that after Singh's anticipatory bail was rejected, he had filed this petition to indirectly get a court order which would stop the police from arresting him. He added that Singh's medical records showed that he was advised to go to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, but instead chose to seek treatment at other private hospitals. While Singh claimed that he had been in police custody during his hospital visits, Gavand told the court that he had been taken to the hospitals by his relatives. A division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad carefully examined his hospital records and noted that he was not an 'arrestee' at the time he was admitted. The medical record indicated that after Singh declined admission to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital on January 17, he admitted himself to Navkaar Hospital. Singh's discharge summary proved that his relatives had asked for him to be transferred to another hospital, and there was no mention of the police admitting him to the hospital. This indicated that he was not in police custody and was accompanied by his family. The court said that the medical records established, beyond any doubt, that Singh had not been in police custody at any point. Therefore, his claim of being arrested and not produced before the magistrate was entirely false, the court added. 'Since he was not under arrest, the question of his production before the magistrate does not arise', the court noted. The court also held that the deliberate suppression of facts was a serious error. 'The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court with unclean hands', the bench said. The court highlighted that Singh was attempting a 'second bite at the cherry' by seeking relief from the court after his anticipatory bail was rejected earlier. The court observed that Singh's petition was cleverly drafted by suppressing facts and essentially aimed to protect him from any coercive actions by the police. The court declined to grant any relief to Singh and allowed the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The court dismissed Singh's petition calling it false and an abuse of the process of law. The bench imposed a ₹25,000 fine on Singh which he must deposit within 21 days.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Uttarakhand HC orders notice before arrest in fraud cases involving over Rs 19L
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court (HC) has ruled that a notice must be issued before arresting an accused in a fraud and cheating case involving over Rs 19 lakh. The court directed police to serve a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which specifies conditions for arrest without a warrant, and to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, aimed at preventing unnecessary arrests in cases where the maximum punishment is less than seven years. The single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit delivered the order in connection with the arrest of Pantnagar resident Raghavendra Mishra, accused of defrauding an individual of approximately Rs 19.8 lakh by allegedly impersonating a district magistrate. On July 22, Kashipur resident Jyoti Bisht lodged a complaint at ITI police station in Udham Singh Nagar, alleging that Mishra, along with his wife Preeti Mishra and their daughter Anshika Tiwari, cheated her late husband, Suresh Singh Bisht, of nearly Rs 19.8 lakh. The accused allegedly promised to secure an agency and licence for agricultural fertilisers, arrange jobs for children, and issue certificates. Bisht further claimed they demanded an additional Rs 7 lakh in Jan, threatening that failure to pay would result in forfeiture of the earlier sum. She said the financial and mental strain led her husband to suffer a brain haemorrhage on Jan 15, and he died a week later on Jan 22 at Delhi's Max Hospital. When she sought the return of the money, the accused allegedly abused her and issued death threats. With no action from local police or the SSP despite repeated complaints, she approached the high court. On Friday, while disposing of her petition in line with Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the court clarified that since the maximum punishment under the charges is seven years, issuing a notice before arrest is mandatory. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court denies official's appeal for call data records & diary entries in corruption case
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a govt employee facing corruption charges. He sought call data records of the complainant in the case and also copies of the entries from the general diary of the office of superintendent of police, ACB Ranga Reddy Range. The accused official, who was was booked on corruption charges in 2019, requested the records under the RTI Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P Sam Koshy observed that the information sought by the accused official could impede prosecution or threaten witnesses and, therefore, cannot be provided under the RTI Act. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The case is currently pending before the ACB Court, Hyderabad. The official claimed he sought the records to defend himself before the concerned trial court. Claiming that the CDRs and the GD entry records were needed to prove his innocence, the accused official argued that the investigation in the case was completed. Moreover, since a charge sheet was filed, there was no scope for further investigation. Initially, he requested information from the public information office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). When the PIO denied the information, and subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, he approached the HC, which also turned down his petition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo Challenging the single judge's order, he filed an appeal. The HC, after examining his argument and that of the govt counsel, upheld the PIO's response of denying the information and the subsequent responses to the first and second appeals. When he challenged the same before the division bench, the bench ruled that the accused could not seek the requested information under the RTI Act, as it was exempt under Section 8(1)(h). "Such investigation material, meant to be used against the accused, can only be obtained under Section 207 of the CrPC through the trial court at the appropriate stage," ruled the bench. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
