Salman home firing: Accused denied bail
Salman Khan
's residence last year saying the accused cannot escape MCOCA provisions merely because there are no criminal antecedents against him.
The bail plea of accused Sonu Chander alias Sonukumar Bishnoi was rejected by Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act Judge Mahesh Jadhav on Friday, details of which were made available on Monday. The special court held that evidence clearly demonstrates Chander along with other accused and leader of the Bishnoi gang hatched the conspiracy to kill the victim. pti
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
4 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Bengaluru bizman fined Rs 40L for unpaid road tax on luxury cars bought from Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan
Bengaluru: Transport authorities have fined scrap dealer-turned-billionaire Yousuf Shariff, popularly known as KGF Babu, nearly Rs 40 lakh for using two Maharashtra-registered Rolls-Royce cars in Bengaluru without paying the required road tax. One of the cars (MH11-AX-0001) was bought second-hand from Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan, and the other (MH 02-BB-0002) from actor Aamir Khan. A team led by Joint Commissioner of Transport (Bengaluru Urban) Shobha M searched Shariff's residence in Vasanthnagar on Wednesday and inspected his collection of luxury cars. .Ferrari owner in Bengaluru forced to pay Rs 1.42 crore after evading found that both Rolls-Royces were being used in Karnataka without paying the applicable road tax. As per transport department rules, any vehicle registered outside Karnataka and used continuously in the state for over a year must pay the applicable road tax. The department fined Shariff Rs 19,83,367 for the Rolls-Royce bought from Khan, and Rs 18,53,067 for the one purchased from Bachchan. Shobha said Yelahanka RTO officials had noticed the Rolls-Royces being used in Bengaluru and issued notices to Shariff. "He did not respond to the notices and claimed he was in Mumbai — and so were the cars," Shobha told DH. However, department officials recently discovered that both cars were being used regularly in Bengaluru and decided to take action. "We visited his residence and found both cars. We conducted an inspection and asked him to pay the applicable road tax and fine. He paid through demand drafts as we don't accept cheques," Shobha said. She added that both cars were quite old. Bachchan's Rolls-Royce is 17 years old, while the one bought from Khan is 15 years old. Shariff bought Bachchan's car in 2021 and Khan's in 2023, the official said. Shariff's wife Shaziya Tarannum confirmed the development to DH, stating that the applicable fines had been paid through demand drafts. A native of Kolar Gold Fields (KGF), Shariff is also known by the nicknames Gujri Babu, Scrap Babu and Raddi Babu, a reference to his earlier business of scrap trade. Shariff later made it big in real estate. In 2021, Shariff contested the Karnataka Legislative Council election from the Bangalore Urban local authorities' constituency on a Congress ticket but lost. He had declared assets worth Rs 1,744 crore belonging to himself and his family, making him one of the richest political candidates in Karnataka. In 2023, he contested the assembly election from Chickpet in Bengaluru as an independent after the Congress denied him the ticket. He secured 20,931, or 16.25%, of the total votes caste, finishing third. The BJP's Uday Garudachar won the seat with 57,299 votes. The Congress candidate, RV Devaraj, came second with 45,186 votes.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court denies bail to convicted Mumbai gangster Arun Gawli pending appeal in 2007 murder case
Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied bail to convicted gangster Arun Gulab Gawli pending his appeal against conviction in a 2007 murder case. The SC bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar declined Gawli's plea for bail. Appearing for Gawli, former Bombay High Court Judge, Abhay Thipsay, then sought an early date to expedite the hearing of the appeal, as in the other case against him, the gangster was acquitted. Gawli was serving a rigorous life imprisonment sentence after an Aug 2012 conviction in a 2007 murder case of Mumbai Shiv Sena corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar and 2008 and 2009 special cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The life sentence is life till the end of natural life, the SC has held time and again. The state, however, has a remission policy in place for lifers. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The state, represented by additional solicitor general Raja Thakare, meanwhile, earlier filed a special leave petition (SLP) seeking to challenge the judgment dated April 5 passed by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay HC bench that permitted the gangster's early release citing a 2006 state policy for remission, called the 'Premature Release policy'. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Undo by Taboola by Taboola The state said the HC order was "completely misconceived'' as the law provides power to remit a sentence to the govt. The SC, in a 1976 ruling, said only the govt possesses sole discretion of granting remission to a convict. The state's contention was that the HC could not compel the state to implement any remission and release him as it said Gawli is a "hardened criminal turned politician'' convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in a crime syndicate case and has other pending cases against him, including others under the stringent MCOCA. Gawli formed the Akhil Bharatiya Sena and was also elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in 2004 in Chinchpokli, Mumbai, a neighbourhood close to his home at Dagdi Chawl.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘Grave error': Why Bombay HC acquitted all 12 convicted in 2006 Mumbai train blasts
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case, overturning a 2015 verdict by a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court that had sentenced five of them to death and seven to life imprisonment. A Division Bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Shyam C. Chandak delivered a scathing indictment of the Mumbai Police's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), remarking that it had created 'a false appearance of having solved a case.' The judgment ordered the release of 11 men after 19 years of incarceration. One of the accused had died in custody in 2021 due to COVID-19. Only one among them, Wahid Shaikh, had been acquitted earlier by the trial court in 2015 after it found no evidence against him. He, too, had spent nine years in prison before being exonerated. What is the case? Nearly two decades ago, on July 11, 2006, Mumbai was shaken by a coordinated series of bomb blasts that left an indelible scar on the city's collective memory. Within a matter of minutes, seven explosions ripped through suburban trains on the Western Railway line during the peak evening rush hour, killing 189 people and seriously injuring 824. According to the Mumbai Police, the bombs had been assembled using pressure cookers and strategically planted to cause maximum devastation during the city's busiest commute hours. In the immediate aftermath, the Congress-led Maharashtra government handed over the investigation to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). Eventually, 13 individuals were put on trial in connection with the blasts and 17 others, including Pakistani nationals, were named in the ATS chargesheet. Why did the High Court set aside the convictions? The prosecution's case rested primarily on eyewitness testimonies, the recovery of explosives, and confessional statements. However, the High Court found the evidence to be fundamentally compromised. It opined that the confessions were extracted through 'barbaric and inhuman' torture, the eyewitness accounts lacked credibility, and the recovered materials were 'vulnerable to tampering' and therefore inadmissible. 'Punishing the actual perpetrator of a crime is a concrete and essential step toward curbing criminal activities, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. But creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermines public trust and falsely reassures society, while in reality, the true threat remains at large. Essentially, this is what the case at hand conveys,' the Bench underscored in its 671-page judgement. Here are some of the key findings: Unreliable eyewitnesses The prosecution's case relied heavily on eight eyewitnesses, including taxi drivers who allegedly ferried the accused and train passengers who claimed to have seen them planting the bombs. However, the court deemed this testimony 'unsafe,' citing significant delays and a lack of corroboration. Most witnesses approached the police over three months after the incident, casting doubt on the reliability of their recollections. The court was particularly critical of the two taxi drivers, who remained silent for nearly four months. It found it implausible that they could accurately recall the faces of passengers given the fleeting and routine nature of taxi rides in a metropolis like Mumbai. Similarly, a witness who had assisted in preparing sketches of the suspects was never brought to testify in the trial or asked to identify the accused in court. A significant procedural lapse that further weakened the prosecution's case was the invalidity of the test identification parades. The special executive officer who conducted them, Shri Barve, lacked the legal authority, as his tenure had ended more than a year earlier. As a result, the identifications made during these parades, including that of three accused, were ruled inadmissible. Coerced confessions The High Court held that the confessional statements of 11 convicts were inadmissible, citing grave violations of statutory safeguards. Most notably, the Bench concluded that the confessions had been extracted through torture. The judgment detailed chilling allegations by the accused, who described being beaten with belts, having their legs forcibly stretched apart, subjected to electric shocks, and deprived of sleep. These accounts were corroborated by medical reports from King Edward Memorial and Bhabha hospitals. The prosecution's case was further weakened by the striking similarity across the confessions, even though they were recorded by different officers at different times and locations. The statements were found to be 'verbatim', including the phrasing of questions, responses, and even grammatical errors, raising serious doubts about their voluntariness. The court also found that key procedural safeguards were ignored. The accused were not informed of their right to legal counsel before their statements were recorded, and there was neither certification of the language used nor any confirmation that the confessions were read back and acknowledged by them. No 'prior sanction' under MCOCA The High Court delivered a decisive blow to the prosecution by holding that the very invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), was unlawful. The statute requires 'prior sanction' by a competent authority, a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, before it can be invoked in a case. This is a crucial safeguard since the stringent anti-terror law reverses the burden of proof, allows prolonged detention and dilutes evidentiary standards. The court found that the sanctioning officer had granted approval without examining the necessary documents, some of which were submitted only after the approval had been issued. 'Mere reproduction of some expressions, used in the definition of 'organised crime', 'continuing unlawful activities' or 'organised crime syndicate' to show the compliance, cannot be said to be in tune with the letter and spirit of the law relating to grant of approval for invocation of the provisions of the MCOCA,' the court underscored. The prosecution's failure to call the sanctioning officer as a witness further compounded the lapse. The court concluded that without his testimony, the approval for invoking MCOCA lacked legal validity. Destruction of evidence A key point of contention was the call detail records (CDRs) of the accused. Although the defence repeatedly sought access to them, the prosecution claimed the records had been destroyed. The court found this deeply troubling, noting that the CDRs were crucial for establishing the accused's whereabouts during alleged conspiracy meetings and for verifying or refuting claims of contact with operatives in Pakistan. It concluded that the destruction of such potentially exculpatory evidence appeared deliberate and amounted to the suppression of material facts. This, the court held, cast 'serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation' and constituted a 'grave violation of the right to a fair trial.' The judges also found serious lapses in the handling of physical evidence allegedly recovered, such as RDX granules, detonators, pressure cookers, circuit boards, hooks, and maps. They pointed out that the prosecution's failure to maintain a clear chain of custody and ensure secure sealing before submission to the Forensic Science Laboratory severely compromised the evidentiary value of these items. What happens next? The Maharashtra government has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's verdict. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on July 24. Earlier, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai briefly observed that staying a judgment of acquittal at the appellate stage is an option exercised only in the 'rarest of rare' cases. His oral remark came when a lawyer mentioned the State's petition before his Bench.
