Alleged retaliation: Man shot dead in Sham Nagar
The man who fired the gunshot in Sham Nagar is the nephew of Kanwaljit Kumar, a hotelier from Jawahar Nagar, at whose house three men fired a gunshot in the early hours of July 15.
The deceased has been identified as Rohit Kumar, 24, of New Vijay Nagar in Haibowal area. Based on the statements of Rohit's father, Naresh Kumar, division number 5 police lodged an FIR against Manav of Jawahar Nagar and his unidentified accomplice on charges of murder.
Naresh Kumar said that his son left the house on Sunday night, saying that he was going for some work with his friends. Later, they received information that Jawahar Nagar resident, Manav, and his aide shot him dead in Sham Nagar. Police lodged an FIR under Sections 103 (murder) of BNS and relevant sections of the Arms Act.
According to a police source, Manav contacted the police on Sunday night, claiming that three men wanted to shoot him and he fired at one of them in self-defence, resulting in one person's death.
An official told TOI, "Initially, Manav, nephew of Jawahar Nagar-based hotelier Kanwaljit Kumar, informed the police that he went to a fuel station near Sham Nagar on a scooter with his friend. After getting fuel, they were returning to Jawahar Nagar when they were intercepted by three men on a scooter. Manav claimed that one of them had a pistol and wanted to kill him. However, he pre-empted the attack and shot in self defence, leading to the man's death.
Manav said that the attack was connected with the previous attack at their house one year ago, during which his father, Jindi, was murdered. He added that his uncle (father's brother), Kanwaljit, was to testify against the killer, Darpan, in court on July 23. Manav alleged that the assailants wanted to attack him to threaten the family and stop them from giving the testimony.
"However, when police scanned CCTV cameras installed in the locality overnight, the story changed.
It was found that the three men, including the deceased, Rohit, had a gun, and Manav also had a pistol. Rohit and his accomplices initially intercepted Manav, who escaped. Rohit and his two aides parked their scooter near a car and hid behind it, waiting for Manav to pass by. CCTV cameras captured Manav stopping his scooter a few steps away and walking up to the car with a pistol in hand.
As soon as Manav came near the car, Rohit jumped before him with a gun but Manav shot him in the chest at point blank range before he could do anything.
Thereafter, he fled," said the official.
A
s Rohit fell, he tried to point the gun at Manav, who was fleeing, but collapsed before he could shoot. His aides did not raise an alarm but rushed him to the civil hospital, where he was declared dead. A police official said that they were trying to ascertain the connection between the Sham Nagar and Jawahar Nagar firing incidents as well as Jindi's testimony in the murder case.
Box: Manav returned 10 minutes later to pick up the bullet shell from the spot.
CCTV cameras showed that Rohit was shot dead at 11.23pm. At 11.43pm, Manav, along with a group of men, returned to the spot in an SUV to search for the bullet shell. They spent a few minutes at the spot, picked up the bullet shell, and escaped.
Connection with previous case:
Accused, Manav, is nephew of hotelier Kanwaljit Kumar, whose house was targeted in a firing incident on July 15
Background & Motive
Manav claimed self-defence, alleging that Rohit and two others tried to kill him
He linked the attack to the murder of his father, Jindi, a year ago.
Claimed that the attackers wanted to intimidate his family before Kanwaljit's court testimony on July 23.
CCTV Revelations
Footage showed Rohit and his aides lying in wait behind a car
Manav approached with a pistol and shot Rohit first
Rohit tried to retaliate but collapsed
Contradicts self-defence claim
Aftermath
Manav returned 10 minutes later with others in an SUV to retrieve the bullet shell
Police are investigating links between Sham Nagar shooting, Jawahar Nagar firing and Jindi's murder case
MSID:: 122816002 413 |
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
Sebi gets interim relief as HC halts special court order to probe a 1995 IPO
Can a special court order the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to initiate investigation of alleged malfeasance brought to its notice by an investor? The Bombay high court is currently seized of such a case, and the final outcome could reinforce the line between judicial overreach and regulatory autonomy. The Bombay high court has in the interim stayed a special court's order that directed Sebi to investigate alleged irregularities in Radhe Developers' December 1995 listing on the BSE, after an investor sought a court-ordered probe through the criminal procedure route. The interim stay halts the special court's 23 January order, which required Sebi to investigate and file an action taken report, till the High Court hears the case again. The matter, listed in mid-June, is expected to be taken up again later this month. A single-judge bench of Justice R.N. Laddha issued notice to the complainant on Sebi's revision plea and recorded the regulator's core position: special courts under the Sebi Act are meant to try offences on complaints instituted by Sebi, and do not have the jurisdiction to compel the regulator to open investigations or supervise how it exercises its administrative powers. In its April order, the high court highlighted Sebi's challenge to the special court's authority and stayed the 'execution, operation and implementation" of the impugned order. The underlying proceedings stem from a complaint by investor and legal reporter Sapan Shrivastava, who alleged that the Gujarat-based realty developer Radhe Developers was listed on the BSE in December 1995 without complying with Sebi's listing norms and sought directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which empowers a magistrate to direct initiation of an investigation. Also Read: Sebi chief urges redefining role of independent directors as stewards of accountability While acknowledging that Section 26 of the Sebi Act allows cognisance of offences only on a complaint by the regulator, the special court nevertheless held it could direct Sebi to investigate in investors' interest, and ordered the regulator to inquire and report back. Arguing before the High Court, Sebi said that Section 156(3) CrPC is confined to directing police to investigate cognisable offences and cannot be applied to statutory regulators operating under their own enabling law. The regulator also stressed that special courts are designed for expeditious trial of offences arising under the Sebi Act upon a Sebi-filed complaint, not to mandate investigations or control Sebi's discretion at the pre-complaint stage. Shares of Radhe Developers closed 3.5% lower at ₹2.74 apiece on the BSE on Tuesday. Why this matters The case could reset the line between judicial oversight and regulatory autonomy in securities law enforcement, especially for investors attempting to revive scrutiny of legacy listings through criminal court applications. 'The role of a special court is to adjudicate offences brought before it, not to identify or investigate them in the first instance," Sachit Mathur, managing partner at Emerald Law Offices, said. Allowing special courts to direct Sebi to investigate would be an overreach and ultra vires, he said, warning it could disrupt Sebi's autonomy and the statutory design that vests investigation squarely with the regulator. Mathur added that magistrates' directions under the criminal procedure code extend only to police and do not bind Sebi. Investors can escalate grievances on SCORES, which is Sebi's online complaint redressal platform, approach Sebi's grievance cell, and, if needed, file a writ under Article 226 for a time-bound mandamus to consider the representation without dictating the outcome. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, high courts can issue writs or directives for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Mandamus is one of the five writs, which is issued to force a public authority to perform a public duty. Aditya Bhansali, founding partner at Mindspright Legal, said the Sebi Act does not empower special courts to order Sebi to initiate an investigation on an investor's application, and Section 156(3) cannot compel statutory regulators to exercise investigative powers. 'The most effective lawful route for investors seeking action is to file a writ petition before the high court," he said, noting that while the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) is an appellate forum, it is available only when there is an order by Sebi or an exchange, often absent where investors allege inaction. The Bombay high court's interim stay aligns with its recent caution against trial courts mechanically directing criminal or investigative measures in securities market cases without clear legal footing. Also Read: Sebi mulls framework to boost resident Indians participation in FPIs Earlier this year, it stayed an Anti-Corruption Bureau court's order directing registration of an FIR against former Sebi chair Madhabi Puri Buch and others, finding the order mechanical and non-specific. Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co, said that directing an investigation would usurp a function reserved for the regulator and act before the court's jurisdiction properly begins. Implications for investors For investors, the case could reshape how Sebi's online grievance redressal platform SCORES and other remedies are used. As Bombay High Court counsel Yash Joglekar noted, Section 156(3) authorises directions to the officer in charge of a police station, not to Sebi. Legacy matters face added hurdles: laches from decades-long delays, incomplete listing records, and missing witnesses—while Section 26 of the Sebi Act bars criminal proceedings unless initiated by Sebi itself. The doctrine of laches is a legal principle under which legal claims can be barred due passage of an unreasonably long time. If the high court affirms that special courts cannot compel Sebi to investigate, the practical path shifts to administrative and constitutional routes, he said. 'Investors will have to rely on escalation through SCORES and the grievance cell, use RTI to seek reasons for inaction, approach SAT where there is an appealable order, and file writ petitions for time-bound consideration—without asking courts to micromanage outcomes." Tushar Kumar, advocate at the Supreme Court, cautioned that vintage listings pose severe practical barriers. 'Listings from the mid-1990s raise formidable obstacles—from limitation and laches to the retrieval of contemporaneous evidence, records and witnesses," he said. A ruling upholding Sebi's stance would entrench regulatory autonomy and curb ad hoc, court-driven probes, while pushing investors towards regulatory and constitutional remedies, he added. Also Read: Sebi rejects Anil Ambani's settlement plea over Yes Bank investments 'Such a pronouncement would reinforce the line between judicial oversight and regulatory independence and may trigger debate on narrowly tailored statutory channels for independent scrutiny in exceptional cases—preserving market integrity without undermining Sebi's functional autonomy."
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Any good law can be misused or abused: Supreme Court; journalists' articles, videos prima facie not sedition, says top court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said on Tuesday that a journalist's news article or video is prima facie not an act endangering the unity and integrity of the country to invite a charge under Section 152 of BNS, the modified version of the 'sedition' offence under IPC Section 124A. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this while protecting from arrest the editor of news website 'The Wire', Siddharth Varadarajan, and members of the 'Foundation of Independent Journalism' in an FIR registered by Assam Police on a complaint accusing the editor of writing seditious articles by reporting about the alleged loss of IAF jets during Operation Sindoor . The scribe said he wrote the report quoting India's defence personnel, including the country's military attache to Indonesia. Any good law can be misused or abused: SC The bench said, "For writing articles or preparing news videos, should journalists get entangled in cases? Should it require arrests?" Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the petition filed by the journalist challenging the validity of Section 152 is a camouflage to avoid accountability. Justice Kant said, "We are not classifying journalists as a separate class. However, does an article pose an imminent threat to the unity and integrity of the country? It is an article, not like someone is smuggling illegal arms and ammunition into India." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Photos Captured the Exact Wrong Moment Read More Undo On the petitioners' allegation that Section 152 does not define which acts constitute an offence under the provision, Justice Kant said, "How can it be legislatively defined as to which all acts would constitute an offence of endangering the unity and integrity of the country? Law has to be applied to facts of each case to determine whether the charge under Section 152 is correct. Inviting the legislature to define what endangers national unity and integrity will be inviting danger. " Appearing for petitioners, senior advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan said they have also challenged the validity of BNS Section 152, which is nothing but a refined version of the draconian Section 124A, the operation of which was virtually stayed by SC pending adjudication of its validity by a five-judge bench. The court did not accept her second line of argument that Section 152 was prone to misuse and abuse by police. "Is potential abuse or misuse of a provision of law by authorities a valid ground to declare that provision of law unconstitutional? There is a vast difference between implementation of a law and power to legislate," Justice Bagchi said. Justice Kant's response was similar. "Any good law, declared constitutional by SC, can be misused or abused by police authorities. Should that be a ground to declare the law unconstitutional? SC ruling in the Kedar Nath Singh (1962 case) continues to hold the field and in which SC had ruled that the crime of sedition is restricted to 'actual violence or incitement to violence' against the govt." Senior advocate Ramakrishnan said that the word 'sedition' is not there in Section 152 but for all other purposes the intent of the provision is identical to Section 124A and is being increasingly used to harass journalists. The bench reluctantly agreed to tag this petition with a petition by S G Vombatkere, who has also challenged the validity of Section 152 and whose earlier petition challenging Section 124A is pending adjudication.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Woman reports daughter to police for plotting family jewellery theft; 4 held
LUCKNOW A young woman's desire for lavish shopping led to her and her three friends' arrest after they conspired to steal jewellery from her family's home in a Rae Bareli village. The woman's mother, after discovering her daughter's role in the theft, reported the incident to the police. All four women, aged between 20 and 21, were arrested on a Tuesday for the theft of jewelry valued in lakhs. The mother of the key accused remained firm in her decision to have her daughter sent to jail, said police authorities. All four women, aged between 20 and 21, were arrested on a Tuesday for the theft of jewellery valued in lakhs. (Pic for representation) The accused were identified as Sonali Awasthi, Muskan Prajapati, Suman Kumari, residents of Satav village and Himanshi Kumari of Pooranpur village under Gurubakshganj police station limits. The accused confessed that they had plans to buy designer clothes, cosmetics, mobile phones and footwear, the Rae Bareli police stated in an official release. Sonali, while in Haryana, was caught by her mother for plotting the theft. She had given duplicate keys and details about the jewelry to her friends, and was keeping them updated on her family's whereabouts so they could steal the valuables. However, Sonali's mother, Asha Awasthi, overheard her daughter's phone calls and, connecting the dots, tipped off the police. Asha Awasthi named her daughter Sonali and her three friends in the FIR lodged at Gurubakshganj police station on Monday under Section 305 (house theft) of BNS. The police sent the four accused to judicial custody after producing them before a competent court. Sonali, who lived with her parents, Asha Awasthi and Guddu Awasthi, in Haryana for livelihood and frequently visited her native place in Satav village of Rae Bareli. She was aware about the jewellery secretly kept at her house in Rae Bareli, stated SK Singh, inspector in-charge of Gurubakshganj police station. 'While in Haryana, Sonali shared the details with her friends and provided them with duplicate keys and information about the jewellery to steal it in the absence of her family members. She even kept her friends updated about their live location over phone,' he said, adding: 'But Sonali's mother, Asha Awasthi, had a suspicion on her as she had overheard her daughter's conversation over phone and connected the dots to hint cops about the suspects.'
