HC rejects Agusta accused plea for release from jail
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"Considering the allegations under Section 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc) of IPC, which entails life imprisonment, it cannot be said the accused has already undergone the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences," judge Sanjay Jindal said in his order Thursday.
The question of whether IPC Section 467 could be applied will be decided at the stage of framing charges, the judge held. tnn
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Gurgaon school murder: Full-day hearings to expedite trial
Gurgaon: In a move to speed up proceedings in the 2017 school murder case, the trial court has decided that the entire day be devoted exclusively for the hearing of this case from Sept onwards. The decision comes after more than two years of proceedings, during which only 21 of 123 witnesses listed by the CBI have had their statements recorded. By dedicating full days to the trial, the court aims to facilitate a swifter process, allowing for more witness testimonies during every hearing. The case involves a former Class XI student — now 23 — who was apprehended by the CBI in Nov 2017 for the alleged murder of a Class 2 boy inside the school toilet. The accused, who was 16 at the time of the crime but is now being tried as an adult, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in Oct 2022. A separate trial is underway against five police officials at a CBI court in Panchkula for the botched up initial probe in which the cops had taken a school bus driver into custody You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon Initially handled by additional chief judicial magistrate Amit Gautam, the case has now been transferred to the court of additional sessions judge Puneet Agarwal. The next hearing is scheduled for Sept 12, when the court will sit for the entire day from 9am to 4.30pm. The court is aiming to complete recording the testimonies of at least four witnesses during every session. Sushil Tekriwal, who represented the victim's father in court, said the court had instructed the CBI to present the maximum number of witnesses possible at every hearing. "The court's directive is a response to the slow pace of the trial, which saw only 12 witness statements being recorded in the first six months and nine more over the following year and a half. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dominican Republic: New Senior Apartments (Prices May Surprise You) Senior Apartments | Search Ads Search Now Undo The Supreme Court has also emphasised the need for a speedy trial. So, the trial court has sought to increase the frequency of hearings by seeking dates at short intervals or increasing the number of witnesses per hearing," he added. Trial in the case started on Jan 24, 2023, when charges under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) were framed against the accused. Since Feb 20, 2023, the CBI has been presenting two witnesses per hearing — sometimes even one — though time constraints and other issues have limited the number of testimonies completed. It was on Sept 8, 2017, that the Class 2 student was allegedly murdered by the senior student on the school campus. The accused was then 16 years and five months old. 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 !
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks on wife's clothing or cooking not cruelty: Bombay high court
MUMBAI: Nearly two weeks after the Bombay high court ruled that taunts over skin colour or cooking skills do not amount to 'cruelty' under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), its Aurangabad bench has made a similar observation—holding that remarks about a wife's clothing or cooking abilities cannot be treated as 'grave cruelty' by husband or relative under section 498-A. The Bombay high court order came in a case involving a woman who had married on March 24, 2022, nearly a decade after divorcing her first husband.(Representational) The order came in a case involving a woman who had married on March 24, 2022, nearly a decade after divorcing her first husband. She alleged that within two months of her second marriage, her husband and in-laws began harassing her—demanding ₹15 lakh to buy a flat, insulting her, and concealing information about her husband's physical and mental health. She claimed she was driven out of the matrimonial home on June 11, 2023. On August 12, 2023, she lodged a complaint at Pundlik Nagar police station, Aurangabad, accusing her husband and in-laws of offences under sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The case is pending before the chief judicial magistrate. The woman's counsel argued before the high court that the harassment was both physical and mental, citing restrictions on her communication, accusations about her character, and monitoring of her phone and messaging apps. They also claimed her husband had hidden the fact that he could not father a child and suffered from mental illness. However, the division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that some of the allegations appeared exaggerated and that certain health-related disclosures had been made before the marriage. 'When relationships get strained, exaggerations are made,' the court observed, adding that the claims did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty under Section 498-A. 'Making annoying statements that the informant was not wearing proper clothes or was unable to cook food properly cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment,' the bench said, quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband and his family. In a similar ruling late last month, the high court's principal bench in Mumbai had acquitted a man convicted 27 years ago for abetment to suicide, holding that taunting a wife over her complexion or criticising her cooking were domestic quarrels, not criminal cruelty.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court seeks government's reply on plea against BNS ‘sedition' section
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the offence of sedition punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The 79-year-old petitioner also challenged the provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means', which is undefined. (ANI) A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria further directed the petition to be tagged with a pending batch of cases where the validity of the erstwhile section 124A is already under challenge. The petition filed by retired Army officer SG Vombatkere, a Vishisht Seva Medal winner, described the new provision as nothing but a 'repackaged' sedition law, reintroducing section 124A under a new nomenclature. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate PB Suresh along with advocate S Prasanna pointed out that though the language of the new provision has been altered a bit, its substantive content which seeks to criminalise vague and broad categories of speech and expression makes the provision arbitrary and discriminatory, and hence unconstitutional. Incidentally, Vombatkere had challenged the earlier provision of section 124A, and it was on his plea among a batch of petitions, the top court in May 2022 directed all proceedings related to sedition to be kept in abeyance. The petition demonstrated how section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words — in spoken, written, electronic, symbolic, or financial forms — to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion, or subversive activities. It said that such sweeping language fails the test of constitutional validity for being vague and broad and that they could have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. It further questioned the undefined terms such as 'endangering', 'sovereignty', 'unity', and 'integrity' found in the title of the provision that forms the basis for punishing acts ranging from actual incitement to mere expression of critical or dissenting political opinions. 'The title itself prejudges and colours the conduct described in the provision as one that 'endangers' national integrity, without requiring any proof of such actual consequence,' the petition said. Objecting to such legal architecture, the plea said, 'The title invites prosecutorial and police discretion, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory application, especially against dissenters, minorities, journalists, and civil society actors.' The 79-year old petitioner also challenged the provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means', which is undefined. 'This may criminalise legitimate financial contributions, fundraising, or donations, even when unrelated to any unlawful act. The catch-all phrase 'or otherwise' renders the scope of the section limitless, in violation of the rule of law,' it added. 'Penal laws must meet the constitutional requirement of clarity and foreseeability. The use of such indeterminate terms violates the principle of legality and has a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech,' Vombatkere said. Similar arguments were raised by petitioners in questioning the continuance of section 124A which made the top court convinced that the validity of the provision needs to be examined. While passing the order to stay all pending trials concerning section 124A, a three-judge bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana was inclined to refer the matter to a larger bench. This was necessary as the top court in a 1962 judgment in Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar had upheld the validity of sedition offence. However, the Centre told the court that the Parliament is in the process of bringing a new law to replace IPC. Even as the legislative exercise was underway, the batch of petitions came up for hearing from time to time in the top court. On September 12, 2023, a three-judge bench headed by the then CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud referred the matter to a larger bench having a minimum of five judges. The BNS which replaces IPC, came to be enacted by Parliament in December 2023 and was put into effect from July 1, 2024.
