Bengaluru Man Chased By Dogs, Ends Up Being Suspected Of Theft
In a Reddit post, the victim said the harrowing episode had left him shaken. "I was in a life-threatening situation with dogs chasing me, but instead of empathy, I got treated like a criminal," he wrote.
The techie explained he was walking home at around 11.02 pm, when a group of stray dogs suddenly started chasing him. He ran but was stuck behind a car.
He had two choices: to jump over the car or jump the gate of the building behind him. Seeking safety, he jumped over the gate and landed inside a residential compound.
Within seconds, three residents, a man in his 60s, his wife and a woman believed to be their daughter, confronted him. He said he immediately apologised and told them that he was being chased by dogs and had no other option but to jump the gate to escape the stray animals.
The residents, he said, didn't believe him. "Even if dogs were chasing you, why trespass? We don't care about your situation," the man was told.
The techie claimed he showed his documents, including PAN number, Aadhaar number, address, and even his Darwinbox profile to prove that he was a software engineer working in Bengaluru.
The man claimed the residents didn't believe him, accused him of theft and confiscated his phone. They said they would return it the next morning, only after verifying his story. He said he repeatedly asked them to check the CCTV footage to verify his story or call the police.
"They refused both. For almost 30 minutes, they kept my phone while I stood there feeling completely helpless," he wrote, adding, "Finally, they called their neighbour to check the CCTV. The neighbour confirmed my story, and only then did the old man return my phone. I thanked the neighbour and left," he mentioned.
The man then cited Section 81 and Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that allow individuals to enter private property without permission when escaping immediate danger. He also noted that confiscating his phone without police involvement could be considered wrongful confinement of property under Section 403 of the IPC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Court takes cognisance against ABG Shipyard in ₹22,000 cr bank fraud case
A Rouse Avenue court has taken cognizance of a ₹22,000 crore alleged bank fraud and funds siphoning case against Surat, Gujarat-based ABG Shipyard Ltd, its former Director, Auditor, public servants, and subsidiary companies. It is alleged that ABG Shipyard Ltd transferred huge amounts of money to its related parties, and thereafter, adjustment entries were made. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed a charge sheet, supplementary charge against 6 individuals and 17 companies and firms. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Deepak Kumar, after taking cognizance, issued summons to the accused persons to appear before the court on the next date on August 22. CJM Deepak Kumar said, "I have perused the chargesheet and supplementary charge sheet alongwith the documents annexed with it, including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and have considered the submissions made by the public prosecutor for the CBI and the Investigation Officer." The court said that there are clear and categorical findings in the final report and supplementary final report against the accused persons regarding the commission of offences for which they have been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 120B/420/477A IPC and substantive offences thereof. "Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and material available on record, I take cognizance," CJM Kumar ordered on August 11. The CBI had registered a case on August 25, 2020, on the complaint filed by the consortium of banks, including SBI. The case was registered against M/s ABG Shipyard Ltd, its former managing director Rishi Kamlesh Agarwal, Santhanam Muthuswamy), Ashwini Kumar, Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, Ravi Vimal Newatia, M/s ABG International Pvt Ltd, unknown public servants and unknown private persons alleging the commission of offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 22,842 crore to the consortium of lending banks comprising of State Bank of India (SBI), erstwhile State Bank of Patiala (presently SBI), erstwhile State Bank of Travancore (presently SBI) etc, led by ICICI Bank. During the investigation, other accused were interrogated and arrayed in the supplementary charge sheet. It is stated that the Investigation has also revealed that the accounts were falsified and misrepresented by the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other and thereby defrauded the lender banks by presenting false figures before the lenders and shareholders. Investigation has pointed out that ABG Shipyard, in criminal conspiracy with its promoters, directors, and other key managerial persons, had availed credit facilities from the banks fraudulently. Thereafter, it dishonestly diverted a huge amount of bank funds with ulterior motives to its group concerns. Investigation has further alleged that ABG Shipyard had siphoned off funds for acquiring 14 residential flats in Mumbai for a consideration amount of Rs. 33.50 crores. These flats were purchased by an accused company which was under the control of Rishi Kamlesh Agarwal, Former MD of ABG Shipyard.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
If lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply, SG Tushar Mehta tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the question whether lawyers can be summoned by probe agencies for their legal opinion while investigating their clients. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on summoning of 2 senior advocates by probe agencies while representing clients in cases. Supreme Court Bar Association president and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh referred to the 2005 judgment in the Jacob Mathew case, which dealt with FIRs against doctors in medical negligence cases and mandated a preliminary examination by an expert committee comprising doctors before registration of FIR. Singh said it can similarly be laid down that lawyers can be summoned only after approval of a magistrate court. Attorney General R Venkataramani said it will amount to giving a 'long rope. That may not be required'. He said he will submit his views including 'where the line should be drawn'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he should never be called for giving a professional opinion. He said that if a lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply. Agreeing, the CJI said, 'You were referring to a lawyer advising how to dispose of a dead body or fabricate evidence. That will be covered by section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).' On the suggestion for a court approval to issue summons to lawyers, the SG said, 'Some separate regime being provided for one class of people may not withstand Article 14.' The CJI, however, pointed out that the ruling in the Jacob Mathew case also creates a separate class and asked the SG, 'Have you sought a review of the judgement?' Mehta said he was not opposing the decision in Jacob Mathew. In a note submitted to the court, the SG said, 'Whatsoever. It is unequivocally submitted that the attorney-client privilege is an important and one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so.' 'The core objective of attorney-client privilege is to promote open and frank communication, ensuring that litigants can candidly disclose all relevant information to their lawyers without fear of subsequent compelled disclosure. This uninhibited exchange is vital for advocate/lawyers to provide proper legal advice, which in turn encourages compliance with the law and facilitates effective legal representation. This protection encourages transparency in the legal advice process, fosters respect for the rule of law, and enhances the adversarial system by ensuring that parties can prepare their cases without fear. It is pertinent to note that this privilege is to protect the litigants and at the same time, confers a qualified privilege to the lawyers.' Mehta said 'lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client is a recognised statutory right under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now repealed] and continues to be so under Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'. He added that 'if a lawyer has participated in any act which amounts to or is a subject matter of an offence, beyond his professional duty, the same law which applies to others will apply to lawyers also'.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Ex-lifeguard sentenced to jail 'till last day of life' for raping 3-yr-old student in school
Noida: A special Pocso court on Tuesday convicted and sentenced a former swimming pool lifeguard at a wellknown school chain's Greater Noida campus to life imprisonment "till the last day of his natural life" for sexually assaulting a three-year-old student in 2018. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, which pronounced a double life term under IPC and the protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, also held the school's management financially liable for failing to protect the child and ordered the two investigating officers of the case to stand trial for "abetting the assault". Judge Vijay Kumar Himanshu of the additional district and sessions court cum special Pocso court convicted the former lifeguard, Chandidas, under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 5(m) of Pocso (aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child under 12). Chandidas, who is currently out on bail, was also handed another seven-year term under Pocso Act Section 9(f), read with Section 10, for abusing his position as a school employee. The court imposed a fine of Rs 24,000 on the convict and ordered the school's managing society to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to the girl for rehabilitation within one month, as directed by National Legal Services Authority. The child, then a nursery student, was raped by the lifeguard during swimming class at the school's splash pool on July 12, 2018. She had told her class teacher about the incident. On returning home, she complained of stomach pain and discomfort. She later told her mother that the "swimming pool uncle" had touched her private parts. A medical examination at Delhi's Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital confirmed penetrative sexual assault. An FIR was lodged the next day at Surajpur police station. Chandidas was arrested from the school principal's chamber. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Special public prosecutor (Pocso) Chhavanpal Singh said the prosecution presented 12 witnesses and 14 documentary and electronic exhibits and sought the harshest sentence not just for Chandidas but also for the school, which "failed to act as a custodian of its students". The defence argued that the child's family had a grudge against the school and had "tutored" her into making allegations that were unsupported by medical evidence. The court, however, found the child's statements to police, a magistrate and in court consistent and credible, and corroborated by medical findings from GTB Hospital. The testimony of her parents further supported her account. The court described the school management as a "joint tortfeasor" (legal term for an entity committing a tort or a wrongful act), noting that its inaction and suppression attempts directly contributed to the child's trauma. It cited its powers under Section 33(8) read with Section 9 of the Pocso Act to impose the Rs 10 lakh penalty on the school. "Their attempt to suppress and influence the machinery is clearly apparent and palpable, which cannot be done without the active connivance of the school management society. Hence, the court feels that the school management shall be made vicariously liable for the lapses in terms of awarding compensation for the mental trauma suffered by the victim and her family," the judge noted. The court found the roles of the two IOs, Sita Singh and Rashmi Chaudhary, dubious in the investigation. The IOs had filed a closure report against the principal and class teacher despite evidence available on record. "This court finds there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that to shield the co-accused, the principal and class teacher, both the IOs conducted defective and motivated investigation. Therefore, through deliberate and intentional omission in discharge of duty, they have abetted the offence of sexual assault amounting to rape against the child," the court said in its ruling, declaring the two IOs co-accused under Section 17 of the Pocso Act.
