SC denies interim relief to former CMO officials in liquor scam case
anticipatory bail
pleas of K Dhananjaya Reddy, P Krishna Mohan Reddy, and Balaji Govindappa, the Supreme Court too declined to grant
interim relief
to them in the alleged
liquor scam case
. Dhananjaya worked as secretary to chief minister
Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy
during the YSRCP regime, Krishna Mohan was OSD to the chief minister, while Govindappa is one of the directors in Bharathi Cements.
The trio firsh moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail. After the HC declined to grant them interim relief, they approached the Supreme Court. The apex court earlier declined to grant protection but had stated that it would hear the petition the next day if the high court declined anticipatory bail.The counsels for the petitioners placed the orders of the high court before a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan and sought interim protection pending disposal of the petitions, pleading that the petitioners were apprehending arrest based on the statements given by other accused in the case.Arguing on behalf of the state govt, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said the petition was filed when anticipatory bail applications were pending before the high court.
Operation Sindoor
Operation Sindoor: Several airports in India closed - check full list
Did Pak shoot down Indian jets? What MEA said
India foils Pakistan's attack on Jammu airport: What we know so far
As the high court has already given its judgement, the present petitions are not valid, and the petitioners have to either amend their pleas or file a fresh petition.Considering the arguments of Rohatgi, the Supreme Court bench posted the matter to May 13 for further hearing, allowing the petitioners to file fresh petitions. The counsels for the petitioners sought interim protection till May 13, but the bench declined to grant any relief and said they have to protect themselves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘8 lakh' strays, no govt shelters, Delhi has to redraw its plan
With the Supreme Court underlining that stray dogs should not be returned to the streets, the Delhi government has been forced to rethink its strategy on controlling the canine population — estimated at around 8 lakh in the Capital. According to a senior Delhi government official, the current practice, as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, is to pick up the stray dogs, take them to hospitals for sterilisation, and then release them back on the streets from where they were picked up. 'We have been focusing on the stray dog menace and have held several meetings but now, with the apex court's order, that becomes irrelevant as the context completely changes… The government will implement the order but it is not possible to pick up the dogs and move them out of the city or to the shelters right now,' the official said. The official said that as the government does not have any shelter of its own, the implementation of the court order may take longer than eight weeks. While the government has hospitals, all the shelters are currently run by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In its order on Monday, the Supreme Court asked the authorities to make shelters to house stray dogs, saying they should first start work on a shelter for 5,000-6,000 dogs in the next six to eight weeks. It sought a report within eight weeks on the creation of infrastructure. Meanwhile, hours after the Supreme Court's directions, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) ordered that dogs admitted to its hospitals and other animal sterilisation centres should not be released after recovery. The corporation has also ordered an audit of the existing facilities to house dogs temporarily. 'We have asked the centres not to release the dogs there for sterilisation. We are discussing plans regarding building additional shelters, but this will take time. As of now, we have asked the centres to submit how many dogs they can accommodate. Dogs will also be housed in 77 units of vet hospitals run by the MCD. We will start picking up the dogs according to the available facility,' said Dr S K Yadav, project in-charge, Animal Programme, MCD. He said the corporation picked up 200 dogs from the Red Fort area ahead of Independence Day celebrations, and these would not be released now. 'The estimated population of stray dogs in the city is around 8 lakh. We will follow the SC's orders,' he said, adding that they would first focus on vulnerable areas like schools, colleges, hospitals and public spaces. Delhi Development Minister Kapil Mishra is scheduled to hold a meeting with the concerned departments and officials on Wednesday to discuss the matter. 'We are fully committed to abide by the orders and directions issued by the Supreme Court. We have been working on this issue proactively, to address it on the ground from day one, studying the legal and technical obstacles that existed in the previous system,' he said. He said the government would implement the order in a planned manner, keeping both the public as well as the dog lovers in mind. 'Our focus, while implementing this order, will be the welfare of animals,' he said. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, meanwhile, said the 'stray dog menace' had assumed 'gigantic proportions' and assured that her government would bring in a policy soon. 'The people of Delhi have been worried about the stray dog menace for years… our only duty is to give them relief… Today, this problem has taken a gigantic form… it is very important for the government to resolve it with honesty and integrity,' she said. '… we are looking into what the previous governments did… Since our government was formed, it is continuously discussing the issue and holding meetings to provide relief to the people,' the CM said.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC orders reconstruction of 1984 anti-Sikh riots case records to ensure fair trial
The Delhi High Court has ordered the reconstruction of four-decade-old trial records in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, saying the victims' and society's right to a fair investigation and trial cannot be compromised by missing files or flawed earlier proceedings. The directive, issued to the trial court, concerns the acquittal of five men including former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar in the killing of four Sikhs in Ghaziabad's Raj Nagar. The court said the available material revealed 'several lacunae' in both the investigation and trial. The murders took place on November 1, 1984, a day after then PM Indira Gandhi's assassination. Three women had alleged that their husbands and son were burnt alive. In 1986, the trial court acquitted Khokhar and four others, citing lack of evidence. Now, nearly 40 years later, a bench of justices Subramanian Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar WHEN has acted on petitions challenging the correctness of that verdict. The bench had earlier observed that the 1986 judgment appeared 'unsustainable' and noted it was being relied on in appeals by Khokhar, Captain Bhagmal, Girdhari Lal, Mahender Yadav, and Krishan Khokhar against their 2013 conviction for murdering five Sikhs in the same locality. Neither the state nor the victims had appealed the 1986 acquittal at the time. The court said the available material -- composite challans and the final judgments -- revealed 'several lacunae' in both the investigation and trial. Key eyewitnesses were never examined because summons were sent to addresses destroyed or abandoned during the riots. 'A composite challan has been filed for several cases, prima facie reflecting a perfunctory investigation,' the court said in its 66-page order, adding that the matter 'cannot be left to rest at this juncture.' Citing Supreme Court precedent in Abhai Raj Singh, the bench ruled that the trial court must reconstruct the records of Sessions Cases 31 and 32 of 1986, and only then can the High Court assess whether the original acquittals can stand. The matter will be heard next on September 1. 'The valuable rights of victims and the society at large to a free and fair investigation as also a real trial cannot be allowed to be compromised as a result of fait accompli,' the court observed. Senior advocate HS Phoolka, appearing for the complainants, argued that the 1986 investigation and trial were 'thoroughly inadequate and sketchy' and urged that the matters be remanded for retrial. Amicus curiae Siddharth Aggarwal asserted that the court, before giving any findings into the correctness of the judgements passed by the additional sessions judges, was under a mandate to call for the records, examine the same and only then proceed ahead in the matter. He submitted that the trial court records had been weeded out and it was inappropriate for the court to proceed further with the matter without getting the records. Khokhar's counsel had asserted that ordering a re-trial or further investigation, when the records have been weeded out, would violate his client's right to free trial. In a separate 26-page judgment, the same bench directed the authorities to widely publicise the various government compensation schemes available for victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. It further instructed them to verify victims' claims within 16 weeks of receiving them and to disburse the compensation within two months thereafter.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Aggressive capture, earmarking shelters top MCD's stray agenda
The initial focus of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) will be to identify unused municipal properties for conversion into dog shelters, capture aggressive strays against whom there are multiple complaints, and set up a dedicated helpline for dog-related grievances, among others, officials said Monday. The court made it clear that no stray dog caught during the drive can be released back on the streets (ANI) These steps, senior civic officials said, are part of the MCD's immediate response to the Supreme Court's Monday order directing the capture and housing of all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region within eight weeks. The court made it clear that no stray dog caught during the drive can be released back on the streets. Hours after the top court directive, an urgent meeting of the MCD's sub-committee on dogs with the veterinary department was convened, where these measures were discussed. MCD's standing committee chairperson Satya Sharma, who chaired the meeting, said the civic body reviewed its resources and infrastructure to comply with the order. 'We have issued directions to identify suitable locations for setting up dog shelter centres in consultation with experienced organisations and various NGOs, ensuring that all essential facilities are available. A dedicated helpline number will also be issued by the corporation, on which citizens will be able to register complaints and information related to stray dogs,' Sharma said. To be sure, Delhi currently has no permanent dog shelter. Instead, it operates 20 temporary facilities used primarily for sterilisation, handling around 10,000 dogs a month. Under existing Animal Welfare Board regulations, sterilised dogs are released after a 5-to-10-day observation period. The Supreme Court's order overturns this arrangement by requiring permanent housing. And it isn't clear where Delhi's MCD and NDMC will find room for the estimated 1 million stray dogs in the Capital. Members of the standing committee, who attended Monday's meeting, said that the panel decided that each MCD zone will have at least one shelter, with facilities to hold captured dogs in safe and humane conditions. 'Our aim is not just to control the numbers but to establish a balance between animal welfare and public health,' Sharma said. The committee also acknowledged a shortage of manpower, space and funds. 'We will seek assistance from the Delhi government. The veterinary department has been told to submit a report within two days detailing shortages and requirements. The pace of work will increase after Independence Day,' Sharma said. Committee member and Keshavpuram chairperson Yogesh Verma said the first stage of the drive will target aggressive and ferocious dogs linked to multiple bite complaints. 'We have asked the department to prepare a list of at least 1,000 such dogs in each zone. With an estimated dog population exceeding 1 million, the focus must be strategic,' he said. Verma added that locked community centres, 77 Delhi government veterinary facilities and unused municipal properties are being considered for conversion into shelters. 'Each dog must have minimum holding space. But using properties in residential areas may create noise problems, so locations must be carefully chosen,' he said. Currently, the 20 sterilisation shelters are holding dogs temporarily. In light of the court order, the MCD has instructed that none of these dogs be released. Canines picked up during Independence Day security preparations from areas such as Red Fort, Rajghat and other VIP zones will also remain in shelter. Officials stressed that while the logistical challenge is considerable, the corporation must comply fully with the Supreme Court's eight-week deadline. An MCD official termed the implementation of the order a 'mammoth task' which is unlikely to be completed in eight weeks. 'There is no permanent dog shelter in Delhi and 20 sterilisation centres can only accommodate 4,000 dogs. There is a 1,000 square yard property in Tehkhand, where a shelter will be developed, but it is likely to take at least one year. We will need more dog-catching vans, resources and funds for which the Delhi government will have to provide fund support. The 77 veterinary units under Delhi government's animal husbandry department will also be required to be roped in. Most of all, such a drive will need support from NGOs and animal feeders,' the official said. Yogesh Verma, a member of the dog subcommittee, said an appeal will be issued to NGOs and dog feeders to help provide food to the newly set up shelters. Standing committee chairperson Satya Sharma said that financial help and resources will be sought from Delhi government. The Supreme Court's directive follows growing concerns over dog bites and public safety, alongside ongoing debates on balancing animal rights with public health, although it turns established animal welfare practices and jurisprudence on its head.
