Maoist Killed In Encounter With Police In Chaibasa, SLR Rifle Seized
Jharkhand Police IG (Operations) Dr Michael Raj said the encounter took place during a joint search operation in the Goilkera area, a known Maoist stronghold.
He said as the team entered the forested hill terrain of Sauta, Maoist cadres opened indiscriminate fire. The forces retaliated, triggering a gun battle that lasted for nearly an hour, with several rounds of firing exchanged from both sides.
According to the IG, the rebels suffered significant losses. A Maoist body was recovered after the area was secured, though the deceased is yet to be identified.
He said security forces have intensified combing operations in the area to track down Maoists who managed to escape.
For the past several weeks, police have been conducting sustained anti-Naxal operations in the Saranda region and adjoining forests -- dismantling Maoist bunkers, seizing large caches of IEDs, and recovering weapons.
Officials say the campaign aims to eradicate Maoist influence from the region.
Dr Raj asserted that the forces have been achieving 'continuous success' and expressed confidence that Maoist activities in the area will soon be eliminated.
This year alone, 23 Maoists have been killed in various encounters across Jharkhand. In April, eight Maoists -- including top leader Prayag Manjhi alias Vivek -- were gunned down in a major operation in Bokaro district's Lugu Hills.
Earlier, police had claimed that Maoist activities are now restricted only to the Saranda jungles in Jharkhand. They said they have been eliminated from other areas.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah had earlier said that the security forces will wipe out Maoism from the country by March next year. He also appealed to the Maoists to surrender and join the mainstream by availing the government's rehabilitation package.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
28 minutes ago
- India.com
'Trump is miffed with India because...', former diplomat Vikas Swarup makes shocking claims
Why is Trump miffed with India? former diplomat Vikas Swarup decodes US President Donald Trump has made it a point, in almost all his media interactions in the recent past, to claim he played a role in brokering truce between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in May. However, India has remained firm on its stance that no foreign party had any role in ceasefire. New Delhi's this unyielding stance has miffed President Trump, said former diplomat Vikas Swarup. One of the reasons behind President Trump announcing strict tariffs is because India's decision not to buckle under his pressure tactic. The former High Commissioner to Canada described the United States' current relationship with Pakistan as a short-term, tactical arrangement driven largely by financial interests, while stressing that US-India ties remain strategic. In an interview with the news agency ANI, Swarup said, 'We have to understand why these tariffs have been imposed….One, Trump is not happy with India because we are a member of BRICS…he has got this notion that BRICS is an anti-American alliance which is hell-bent on creating an alternative currency to the dollar…he feels that India should not be a member of the BRICS.' 'Trump has now said almost 30 times that it was he who got the two countries to stop back from the brink, who stopped a nuclear conflagration in the subcontinent. So, he is miffed that India has not acknowledged his role, whereas Pakistan has not only acknowledged his role but has even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize,' Swarup added.
India.com
28 minutes ago
- India.com
‘Ground Reality Can't Be Ignored': Supreme Court Points To Pahalgam Horror In J&K Statehood Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union government to clarify its position on a series of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and emphasised that ground realities must be taken into account. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing petitions that argued the prolonged delay in restoring statehood is 'seriously impacting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and undermining the principle of federalism.' The Bench underscored the significance of the Pahalgam issue during the proceedings. The applicants contended that the absence of a clearly defined timeline for restoring statehood constitutes a breach of federalism, which they emphasised is an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court seeks Centre's stand on pleas seeking restoration of J&K statehood
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Union government's stand on a batch of applications demanding the time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran was hearing pleas contending that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism". The applications argued that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
