SC rejects Sanjiv Bhatt's plea for bail, suspension of sentence in custodial death case
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with an appeal filed by Bhatt against the Gujarat High Court's judgment upholding the trial court's order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
It clarified that the dismissal of the instant plea for bail would not affect the hearing of the appeal on merits and directed expeditious hearing of the matter.
Earlier, the Gujarat High Court had dismissed Bhatt's appeal against the conviction and sentence.
"We are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and therefore, no interference is required in the present appeals. We are of the view that prosecution has proved the case against the respective accused/convicts and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trial Court," a bench of Justices Ashutosh Shastri and Sandeep N. Bhatt had ruled.
"We, also on our independent look, perusal and scrutiny of evidence, found that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge in passing an order, impugned in this proceeding, is in consonance with material on record and in accordance with law and there is no element of perversity of any nature."
In 2019, the Jamnagar Sessions Judge had convicted Bhatt for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 506 (1) read with sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dismissed from service in 2015, Bhatt has been incarcerated since 2018.
In March 2024, the Palanpur sessions court in Banaskantha district sentenced Bhatt to 20 years in jail for his involvement in a 1996 narcotics case. The trial court found Bhatt guilty of planting drugs to falsely implicate a Rajasthan-based lawyer in Palanpur, where Bhatt was serving as the Superintendent of Police at the time. Bhatt had arrested lawyer Sumersingh Rajpurohit under the NDPS Act, claiming that opium was found in his hotel room.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Is a ‘potentiality of abuse' of BNS Section 152 a ground to declare the law unconstitutional, asks the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) asked if 'potentiality of abuse' by the state of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes 'acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', could be a ground to declare the law itself unconstitutional. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the Foundation of Independent Journalism and Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of the online news portal The Wire, who is facing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 152 and other offences under the BNS at Morigaon Police Station, Assam, for the publication of a news article. The petition submitted that the arrest of Mr. Varadarajan and/or others was 'imminent'. The Bench protected Mr. Varadarajan and the members of the Foundation from any coercive action by the police. It issued notice to the Union government and the State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while noting that a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India had issued notice on a separate petition, filed by S.G. Vombatkere, identically challenging Section 152 a few days ago, on August 8. Ms. Ramakrishnan argued that Section 152 of the BNS, though worded differently and avoiding the term 'sedition', was 'in essence' the colonial sedition provision of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). BNS had replaced the IPC at a time when the legality of Section 124A was considered suspect by the apex court, and had been referred to a Constitution Bench for judicial scrutiny and an authoritative pronouncement. The senior counsel submitted that Section 152 was vaguely worded, its ambiguity cloaking an immense capacity to chill free speech, especially of journalists. At this point, Justice Bagchi agreed with Ms. Ramakrishnan that vagueness in a penal provision was a valid ground to challenge it. He referred to how the apex court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for its vague terminology, which indirectly worked to aid authorities to use arrest as a tool to crush dissent. Justice Bagchi said the apex court's judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case had clearly defined that sedition could not be invoked under Section 124A until there was clear proof that words or action had incited violence. 'The acts which come within Section 124A and Section 152, by way of comparative interpretation, would be covered by the ratio of the Kedar Nath Singh verdict that unless there is a clear threat to unity and sovereignty, the offence [of sedition] need not be attracted,' Justice Bagchi observed. Justice Kant said a general list of acts endangering sovereignty could not be prepared by the court; it would depend on a case by case basis 'For example, mere political dissent cannot endanger sovereignty,' Justice Kant said. Again, on the issue of the vagueness of Section 152, Justice Kant indicated that being too specific would also be an invitation for trouble. 'Inviting the Legislature to define 'sovereignty' would be a big danger,' Justice Kant remarked. Mr. Mehta asked whether a challenge to a provision could be used as a ground to gain anticipatory bail or seek the quashing of an FIR under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Kant responded by asking Mr. Mehta whether custodial interrogation was necessary in the case of journalists. 'When media persons get entangled, it is usually something they wrote or a programme aired, etc… These are matters which do not require custodial interrogation,' Justice Kant addressed the law officer. Mr. Mehta replied that journalists could not be considered a 'separate class' while applying the provisions of the criminal law. 'No, but we are on the balancing of their [journalists'] fundamental right to speech against your [the state's] right to investigate and maintain public order,' Justice Bagchi clarified to Mr. Mehta.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 minutes ago
- First Post
Can Delhi follow the Netherlands' example to end its stray dog crisis?
India's Supreme Court has ordered Delhi to remove all stray dogs from public spaces within eight weeks, putting the apex body at odds with many citizens. With rabies cases surging, could proven global models — like the Netherlands' zero-stray success and Bhutan's sterilisation drive — offer humane, effective solutions for India's canine problem? read more Commuters and stray dogs take shelter at a metro station from rain in New Delhi, India, September 13, 2024. File Image/AP India's Supreme Court has directed authorities in Delhi and neighbouring regions to remove all stray dogs from public spaces and place them in shelters within the next eight weeks. The Monday ruling follows months of disturbing reports of attacks by free-ranging dogs —some of them fatal — particularly involving children. Official records reveal an alarming escalation in bite incidents. Government figures from April this year indicated that January alone recorded nearly 430,000 dog bite cases nationwide, while the total for 2024 stood at 3.7 million. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The State of Pet Homelessness survey by Mars Petcare places the country's stray dog population at about 52.5 million, with an additional eight million living in shelters. Estimates from local media suggest that Delhi alone may have as many as one million strays, although this number has not been independently confirmed. The apex court's decision was prompted by multiple reports of children being attacked, some of which resulted in rabies infections that proved fatal. In its ruling, the bench instructed the Delhi government to pick up strays from across the city and move them into designated facilities, adding that an animal helpline must be established within a week to ensure bite cases are promptly reported. 'Infants and young children, should not at any cost, fall prey to rabies. The action should inspire confidence that they can move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs. No sentiment should be involved,' the court said.. The bench also cautioned that any person or group obstructing the removal of stray dogs would face strict legal consequences. Once relocated, the dogs are not to be returned to streets, residential neighbourhoods, or public places. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, argued that current measures were inadequate, explaining that 'sterilisation only prevents the increase in their population, but it does not take away the power of the dogs to give rabies.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The reaction to the SC stray dogs ruling While some see the court's decision as a vital step toward public safety, others question its feasibility. Delhi state cabinet minister Kapil Mishra welcomed the order, saying it would help free the city 'from the fear of rabies and stray animals,' and promised that 'special attention will also be given to the comprehensive welfare of stray animals.' सुप्रीम कोर्ट का ये ऑर्डर दिल्ली को रेबीज और बेसहारा पशुओं के भय से मुक्ति एक रास्ता दिखाता है CM @gupta_rekha जी के नेतृत्व में दिल्ली सरकार का पशु विभाग सभी एजेंसियों के साथ मिलकर इस आदेश का अध्ययन करके इसको समुचित लागू करने की दिशा में आगे बढ़ेगा इस आदेश को समयबद्ध तरीके… — Kapil Mishra (@KapilMishra_IND) August 11, 2025 Animal welfare groups, however, have voiced strong reservations. Conservation biologist Bahar Dutt questioned the practicality of the plan, posting on X: 'Where are the shelters to house thousands of dogs?' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Vidit Sharma, founder of Save A Stray, echoed this sentiment, insisting: 'We need mass vaccination & mass sterilisation — the only humane, proven ways to reduce conflicts.' Animal rights activist and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Maneka Gandhi, also commented on the matter, saying, 'It is not a doable order… This is a very strange judgment given by someone who is in anger. Angry judgments are never sensible…' #WATCH | Delhi | On SC order to send all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters within 8 weeks, Animal Rights Activist and BJP leader Maneka Gandhi says, "It is not a doable order... This is a very strange judgment given by someone who is in anger. Angry judgments are never… — ANI (@ANI) August 11, 2025 She told ANI, '… There is no single government-run shelter in Delhi. In how many shelters would you put 3 lakh dogs? You don't even have one. To make those shelters, you have to spend at least Rs 15 thousand crore… You'll have to find 3000 places for shelters in places where no one lives. How will you find these many places?… This can't be done in two months… You'll have to employ 1.5 lakh people to just be sanitation workers, which will again cost crores… Firstly, when they go to get the dogs, there will be fighting in every street because feeders are not going to let the dogs go. Every day, there will be fights. Do we want this destabilisation situation? Other political parties will get into it to attack the BJP… When the dogs from here are displaced, dogs from nearby states will come to Delhi, as there will be more food here. Then, within a week, there will be another 3 lakh dogs in Delhi, and these will not be sterilised. Then will you start another sterilisation programme and spend hundreds of crores again?…' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Critics have also pointed out that the Supreme Court's instructions conflict with India's Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules 2023. These rules stipulate that sterilised and vaccinated dogs should be returned to the same locations from which they were captured, a principle designed to prevent territorial disputes among strays and avoid the spread of disease between groups from different areas. Dogs walk on empty roads in New Delhi, India, September 10, 2023. File Image/Reuters However, the sheer scale of India's stray population, combined with the public health risks, complicates implementation. Between 2019 and 2022, official data recorded around 16 million dog bite incidents, and parliamentary data from 2023 estimates that rabies kills between 18,000 and 20,000 people annually in the country. Rabies, caused by a virus transmitted through saliva, invades the central nervous system and is almost always fatal without immediate treatment. What Delhi can learn from International models Bhutan's national drive India's neighbour Bhutan offers one example of large-scale, humane stray population control. The Himalayan nation achieved full sterilisation of its stray dogs in 2023 through its 'Nationwide Accelerated Dog Population Management and Rabies Control Programme.' Introduced in 2021, the initiative took inspiration from earlier sterilisation campaigns spread over 14 years. By its completion, 61,680 dogs had been sterilised — 91 per cent of them free-ranging — while 58,581 were vaccinated against rabies. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Additionally, more than 32,500 pet dogs were microchipped and registered. The entire programme cost Rs.29 crore and involved 12,812 personnel. The Netherlands' journey to zero strays Perhaps the most frequently cited international example is the Netherlands, now recognised as the first country in the world to eliminate its stray dog population without resorting to mass euthanasia. The country's success was decades in the making. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Netherlands faced a severe stray dog crisis driven by abandonment. Initial government responses — such as mandatory leash and muzzle laws, culling, and a 'dog tax' — were largely ineffective, and in some cases worsened the problem as financially burdened owners abandoned more pets. By the late 20th century, the country adopted a radically different approach focused on animal welfare, responsible ownership, and public participation. The core strategies included: Heavy taxes on store-bought dogs, encouraging adoption from shelters instead of commercial purchase. This policy dramatically increased adoption rates, helping move thousands of dogs off the streets. The CNVR programme (Collect, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return), which offered free veterinary services to sterilise and vaccinate stray dogs while ensuring their health through medical check-ups. Strict anti-cruelty laws, making abandonment and abuse criminal offences punishable by up to three years in prison and fines reaching €16,000. A dedicated animal police force tasked with rescuing animals, investigating abuse, and enforcing animal welfare laws. The Dutch government also ran nationwide campaigns promoting adoption, highlighting the benefits of rescuing animals from hunger, neglect and abuse. In a matter of months, over 70 per cent of female dogs were sterilised, drastically reducing the number of puppies born on the streets. The Netherlands framed stray dog management as not only a public health concern but also a moral and ethical obligation. Over a million dogs were adopted, rabies has been absent since 1923, and approximately 90 per cent of households now count a dog as a family member. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Could the Netherlands' model work in Delhi? Translating the Dutch experience to Delhi would require more than a change in law — it would demand a sustained public health campaign, large-scale infrastructure investment, and a shift in public attitudes toward adoption and responsible ownership. The ABC approach in India already aligns with parts of the CNVR strategy used in the Netherlands. However, the execution in India has been inconsistent due to resource shortages, overcrowded shelters, and fragmented coordination between municipal bodies and animal welfare organisations. Stray dogs sit on a deserted street, on the day of the G20 summit in New Delhi, India, September 9, 2023. File Image/Reuters Critics of the Supreme Court's latest order argue that without expanding shelter capacity, veterinary services, and adoption incentives, relocation may only shift the problem from public streets to overcrowded facilities. The Netherlands' heavy taxation on pet store purchases could potentially be adapted for India, with proceeds directed toward sterilisation, vaccination, and shelter operations. Likewise, dedicated animal welfare enforcement units — similar to the Dutch animal police — could strengthen the legal deterrent against abandonment and abuse, which remains common in India. From a public health perspective, controlling stray populations is essential to reducing rabies cases. The World Health Organisation recognises mass dog vaccination as the most effective measure for rabies control, but sterilisation campaigns are equally vital for long-term population reduction. From an ethical standpoint, both the Bhutanese and Dutch models demonstrate that humane solutions are achievable when authorities and citizens work together. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
NDTV
37 minutes ago
- NDTV
Who Are The 3 Judges Probing Justice Yashwant Varma In Cash Row
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Tuesday formed a three-member panel to investigate Justice Yashwant Varma, months after burnt cash was found at his Delhi residence. Mr Birla accepted an impeachment motion against Justice Varma, endorsed by 146 members of Parliament. He said the motion will be considered after the committee submits its report. The committee comprises Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice MM Shrivastava, and senior advocate BV Acharya. Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar Justice Aravind Kumar completed his education in Bengaluru, and earned a law degree from Bengaluru University. Active as a student leader, he served as Vice President of the Bangalore University Students' Action Committee. He enrolled as an advocate in 1987 and practised in trial courts before shifting to the Karnataka High Court in 1990. He served as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel (1999) and Assistant Solicitor General of India (2005). He represented the Income Tax Department for 11 years and handled various constitutional, tax, and election cases. A founding member and Vice President of Lahari Advocates Forum, he also served as Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI. Appointed Additional Judge of Karnataka High Court in 2009, he became permanent in 2012, served as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court (2021-2023), and was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023. Madras High Court Chief Justice MM Shrivastava Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava was born in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. He completed his schooling in Bilaspur, earned a BSc from CMD College, and graduated with a gold medal in LLB from K R Law College, Bilaspur. He served on the Board of Studies and Academic Council at Guru Ghasidas University. Enrolled with the Bar Council of MP in 1987, he practised at the District Court, Raigarh, and the High Court. He served as Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Municipal Council Raipur, and Chhattisgarh State Electricity bodies. He is also associated with Rotary International. Designated Senior Advocate in January 2005, he was elevated as Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in December 2009. He was transferred to the Rajasthan High Court, taking oath in 2021. In July, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Senior Advocate BV Acharya BV Acharya, born in Belpu Village, Udupi, enrolled as an advocate in 1957 and began practice in Mangaluru. He moved to the Karnataka High Court in 1972. He served as Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council (1979-1982) and was designated Senior Advocate in 1989. Mr Acharya was Advocate General of Karnataka five times between 1989 and 2012. In 2005, he was Special Public Prosecutor in the disproportionate assets case against former Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalitha, arguing the case before the Supreme Court. Mangalore University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2009. He served on the 19th Law Commission of India (2010-2012) and received the Lawyers of India Day Award in 2017. Since 2019, he has been President of the Karnataka section of the International Commission of Jurists.
