Top court denies bail to corporator's murder accused, orders fast-track trial
According to the prosecution, Prashant Mhatre was allegedly requesting a ticket for contesting elections. Having been denied, he is said to have unsuccessfully tried to kill Manoj Mhatre first in 2013, but failed.Eventually, on the fateful day, Prashant Mhatre along with his co-accused brutally assaulted the victim with a firearm, sickles and chopper – causing him grievous injuries.The prosecution claimed that the weapons used in the 2013 offence were recovered from Prashant Mhatre's office.Appearing for Prashant Mhatre, senior advocate Prakash Deu Naik contended that the petitioner has been in custody for over eight years and sought bail on grounds of parity with 17 co-accused who are already out on bail.However, the State, represented by advocate Deepak Salvi, argued that Mhatre's case was distinguishable due to his direct role, criminal antecedents, and threats to witnesses.Salvi pointed out that 24 witnesses have already been deposed in the case and about 30 vital witnesses are yet to be examined, while the total number of remaining prosecution witnesses is above 50.Salvi submitted, "the depositions of witnesses will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the trial. The principle of prolonged incarceration is inapplicable in the instant case, since the delay has been caused by the petitioner and his co-accused, who did not allow the Court to frame charges for a period of 5 years."Advocate Satish Maneshinde appeared for the widow of Manoj Mhatre, who pointed out that two witnesses had been specifically threatened, and they had been given police protection, apart from the alleged threats extended to the family of the deceased.The Court directed that the trial in the case conclude by January 31, 2026 and, if there is a delay, then the Principal District Judge will have to submit an explanation to that effect to the Supreme Court.It clarified that Prashant Mhatre could renew his bail plea if the trial isn't concluded within the stipulated period.- EndsTune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Advocates hold protest, seek HC Bench in city
Advocates staged a protest at the main gate of the District Court, in Visakhapatnam, on Friday, demanding the establishment of a High Court Beach in the city and the implementation of laws for protection of advocates. They raised slogans in support of their demands, which include: sanctioning of house site pattas to advocates, a separate waiting hall for women in all courts and release of death benefits and a monthly stipend of ₹10,000 for junior advocates. Later, the advocates submitted a memorandum of their demands to the Collector. The protests was led by Indian Association of Lawyers (IAL) National Secretary K.S. Suresh Kumar. National Executive members M.N.M Bhagavathi, District General Secretary G.J.R Ajay Kumar, city president D. Manjulatha and general secretary Jaha Aara participated in the protest.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds man's conviction in minor sexual assault, modifies sentence to life term
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man in a sexual assault case of a minor girl but modified his sentence to life term instead of prison time for the remainder of natural life. The top court's verdict came on the man's appeal against a September 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court.(File Photo) A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found merit in the submission that since the offence was committed in May 2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act could not have been applied to his case. Section 6 deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The bench noted the amended provision of Section 6 of the Act came into force on August 16, 2019. Prior to the 2019 amendment, the court noted, Section 6 entailed a minimum punishment of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment along with the fine. Referring to Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences, the bench said, "The constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute." The trial court was observed to have applied the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 amendment to Section 6, effectively subjecting the convict to a punishment greater than what was permissible under the law at the time of the offence. "The sentence of 'imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life', as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on May 20, 2019, the date of the incident," the bench said. Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was life term in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till remainder of natural life. "Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act, we modify the sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life," it said. The ₹10,000 fine imposed on him was, however, upheld. The top court's verdict came on the man's appeal against a September 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The high court rejected his plea against a trial court verdict, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life with the fine. The man was booked in 2019 on the complaint of the father of the minor survivor.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Expeditiously decide appeals in anti-Sikh riots cases: SC tells Allahabad HC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday told the Allahabad high court to expeditiously decide 'out of turn' the appeals in the 1984 ant-Sikh riots cases, emphasising that the four-decades-old tragedy was investigated only upon the court's intervention and any further delay would result in evidence of vital witnesses being lost. A view of Supreme Court building (Sonu Mehta/HT FILE PHOTO) The court order came on a public interest litigation filed by the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee that complained about the slow progress of anti-Sikh riots cases in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and sought the court's intervention to expedite the appeals pending before the high court seeking re-investigation. 'Keeping that in view, and most importantly the fact that with the passage of time, production of vital witnesses has become a difficult task, we request the high court to take up these matters on an out-of-turn basis and expeditiously,' a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, The court reviewed the UP government's status report, which indicated that the trial had been stayed in three of the 11 appeals pending in the high court. 'What bothers us is that in the 11 cases where the trials commenced pursuant to the charge sheets filed by the SIT, the high court has stayed the proceedings in three cases,' the bench said. The court stated that it did not wish to comment on the issue, as it might impact the accused's rights, but requested the high court to bear in mind that the investigation into these cases was initiated at the top court's intervention. '..all that we request is that the high court may take up these matters out of turn for their adjudication in accordance with law. We say so for the reason the unfortunate tragedy took place way back in the year 1984 and it is only because of repeated efforts made by this court that the investigations were revived, SIT was constituted and on completion of investigation, the chargesheet has now been filed,' the top court said. The UP government informed the bench that in most cases, the high court has condoned the delay in admitting appeals after a gap of more than 8,000 days. The court directed the state's Advocate General to deploy its best law officers having expertise in criminal law to assist in the hearing of the pending appeals. It further directed its order to be placed before the high court bench for necessary action. The petitioner, represented by advocate Jagjit Singh Chabra, requested the court to monitor further progress of the cases. SImilar monitoring is being done by the top court of appeals pending in the anti-Sikh riots cases pursued before the Delhi high court. The top court's attempts to bring justice to the victims of the 1984 riots had led to the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) headed by former Delhi high court judge, justice (retd) SN Dhingra who analysed the riot cases that were closed. In a petition by S Gurlad Singh Kahlon, a former DSGMC member, the top court was informed of the shoddy probe conducted by the Delhi police which clubbed multiple murder cases into a single FIR and failed to register separate offences involving sexual assault, murder, etc.
