‘Participating in Op Sindoor does grant immunity to commit atrocity at home': SC denies relief to Black Cat Commando accused of killing wife
The Supreme Court Tuesday told a man convicted of killing his wife over dowry, who while seeking exemption from surrendering claimed to have participated in Operation Sindoor, that being part of the operation does grant him 'immunity from committing atrocity at home'.
The bench, which was presided over by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and also comprising Justice Vinod Chandran, was hearing an appeal by Baljinder Singh challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order upholding his conviction and sentencing by a trial court.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said it 'goes to show how physically fit you are, and the manner in which alone you could have killed your wife, strangulated your wife.' Justice Bhuyan made the remark as the counsel appearing for Singh said, 'I can only leave with one line, I am a participant in Operation Sindoor. For the past 20 years, I have been a Black Cat commando posted, my lord, in Rashtriya Rifles.'
Singh had also filed an application seeking exemption from surrender pending a final decision on this appeal pending before the Supreme Court. Rejecting this, Justice Bhuyan, however, highlighted that the petitioner has been convicted of a serious offence, and that such an exemption is granted only for lighter sentences.
'This is not a case for exemption. It's a gruesome manner, the manner in which you strangled your wife. Exemption is for when the sentence is of 6 months, 3 months, 1 year,' the judge said.
Singh's counsel contended that the two witnesses on whose testimony his client was convicted, were related to the deceased. However, the bench refused to grant exemption to Singh from surrendering, but issued a notice on his appeal, and also allowed him two weeks to surrender.
An Amritsar court had convicted Singh in the case in July 2004, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
SC denies relief to Army officer in dowry death case, says participation in Op Sindoor doesn't give you immunity
New Delhi [India], June 24 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant the relief of 'exemption from surrender' to an Indian Army Officer convicted in a dowry death case, despite his counsel highlighting the officer's service in 'Operation Sindoor', a recent military operation against Pakistan. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran directed the officer to surrender within two weeks, rejecting the plea for protection from arrest. The counsel appearing for the officer submitted that his client is a black cat commando in the Indian army who participated in Operation Sindoor. However, the Court rejected his argument and stated that having served in Operation Sindoor doesn't give the accused officer any immunity from committing atrocities at home. Notably, the bench remarked that the fact that he's served in the army only shows how fit and capable the officer is of having strangulated his wife to death. The Court also observed that an exemption from surrender is granted in cases involving less serious offences than those presently alleged against the accused officer. After hearing submissions, the Court agreed to issue notice to the respondent State of Punjab on the officers' plea but refused to grant him any protection from surrender. The accused officer had moved a plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in having refused to grant him relief from surrender. The accused officer had earlier been convicted by a Punjab court for having committed dowry death under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He then moved an appeal against conviction in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court granted him relief by suspending his sentence (until his appeal stood pending) after he had served over three years of imprisonment. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal last month and upheld the conviction, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. (ANI)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC questions arbitrariness in using Gangsters Act,summons Muz'nagar DM, SSP to explain 'misconduct'
1 2 Prayagraj: Questioning the 'arbitrariness' in invoking the Gangsters Act, the Allahabad high court has directed the district magistrate (DM), senior superintendent of police (SSP) and station house officer (SHO) of Muzaffarnagar to personally appear before it to explain their 'misconduct and negligence'. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed these directives on June 20 while taking strong exception to the repeated and arbitrary invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against a man, allegedly to keep him inside jail. With this, the court also granted bail to the accused, Manshad alias Sona of Muzaffarnagar in connection with a case registered under section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. You Can Also Check: Prayagraj AQI | Weather in Prayagraj | Bank Holidays in Prayagraj | Public Holidays in Prayagraj The applicant pleaded that the Gangsters Act was invoked against him on the basis of old cases that were already in existence and could have been relied upon during the previous occasion too, when the Act was imposed. It was contended that this reflected a deliberate strategy to misuse the law in order to prolong his incarceration. When queried by the bench, the state counsel could not explain the reason why the Gangsters Act was being repeatedly imposed on the basis of old cases. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo Finding clear arbitrariness in the matter, the court remarked that the conduct of the SHO reflected 'sheer misuse' of the Act. It added that the SSP and DM had also failed in their statutory duty to apply their mind before approving the action, as required under Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021. "This shows not only arbitrariness on the part of the SHO, but also sheer negligence on the part of the SSP and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, who are required to apply their minds at the time of conducting the joint meeting," the court observed as it granted bail to the accused. Furthermore, stressing that such mechanical and repeated use of the Gangsters Act violates both judicial directions and recent guidelines issued by the state in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Gorakh Nath Mishra vs. State of UP, the court summoned the concerned officials on the next date of listing (July 7, 2025) to explain their misconduct and negligence. The Supreme Court has, in recent times, expressed serious concern over the arbitrary invocation of the Gangsters Act. In 2024, the apex court directed the Uttar Pradesh govt to consider the desirability of formulating specific parameters or guidelines governing the invocation of the Act. Pursuant to this direction, the state govt issued certain instructions along with a detailed checklist on Dec 2, 2024.
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Trump admin clashes with judge over Supreme Court deportation ruling
President Donald Trump's administration accused a federal judge on Tuesday of defying the US Supreme Court's authority, escalating a fight over a group of eight migrants who it had sought to rapidly deport to politically unstable South a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said US District Judge Brian Murphy showed "unprecedented defiance" by ignoring Monday's decision by the justices that let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could decision lifted the Boston-based judge's April 18 injunction requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell US officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination. It was the latest legal victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative the Supreme Court's decision, Murphy issued an order clarifying that its action did not apply to the judge's separate May 21 decision that the administration violated his injunction in attempting to send the migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict."Murphy's May 21 order prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to clarify that its order lifting Murphy's injunction also applies to the May 21 decision concerning South Sudan."The district court's ruling of (Monday) night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals," the Justice Department wrote in its Justice Department said its agents are being "forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict."The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them escalating dispute comes as the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders, including in the third-country deportation Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent on Monday that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by also pointed to separate litigation over Trump's invocation of an 18th century law historically used only in wartime to justify deportations - a legal dispute in which questions have been raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law."Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the US Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse representing the migrants in a class action lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration's latest request. The administration wants to "deport these men to South Sudan with no process at all," the lawyers said."The lives and safety of eight members of the nationally certified class in this case are at imminent risk," they added.- EndsTune InMust Watch
