Sex in Navi Mumbai bus: Couple traced, fined by court
Navi Mumbai: A young couple who were caught on camera having sex in the back row of a fairly empty civic-run AC bus in Navi Mumbai last month were recently traced and fined Rs 2,000 each by a local court.
They expressed remorse in court. The video had prompted the civic body to suspend the bus conductor for not being alert and failing to take action against the couple. He was later reinstated.
The clip was shot by a motorist who spotted the couple—a delivery agent and a medical laboratory assistant—from a window of the bus. The conductor was said to have been seated in the front, along with a few passengers, and, therefore, didn't spot them.
After Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation's transport wing filed a complaint at Kamothe police station, an FIR was lodged under Section 296 of BNS and Sections 110 and 117 of Maharashtra Police Act for obscenity in public and the couple were traced based on the video, said police inspector Prashant Tayade.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC seeks govt reply in Moradabad man's lynching case
While hearing the Moradabad mob lynching case, the Allahabad high court recently sought the state and the central governments' replies on a petition moved by the victim's brother seeking an SIT probe and ₹50 lakh compensation. The petitioner Mohd Alam, the brother of the deceased Shahedeen Qureshi, has alleged that his brother was brutally murdered by a group of cow vigilantes in December last year on the mere suspicion of his involvement in cow slaughter. Hearing the plea, a division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra issued notices to the centre, the UP DGP, as well as the Uttar Pradesh government and sought their responses within two weeks. The court passed the order on May 26. The petitioner has raised his grievance in the petition that while the FIR should have been lodged by the police under Section 103(2) of the BNS (mob lynching), it was instead registered under Section 103(1) (Murder). He claimed that although the police state that the section was invoked based on his complaint but alleged that his signature was obtained under duress. The petition alleges that the police are not impartial in the matter, but are attempting to shield the actual perpetrators. It further states that the inaction of police officials in taking preventive measures against communal violence and lynching constitutes a blatant violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India, which mandates specific preventive and remedial measures in cases of mob lynching. On December 29-30 night last year, Shahedeen and a few others were caught by a mob for allegedly slaughtering a cow for meat. While the others managed to flee, Shahedeen was brutally beaten by the mob for nearly an hour. He succumbed to his injuries the next day. Later, Moradabad police booked Shahedeen and his alleged accomplices under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Student Murders 18-Yr-Old Girl, Tries To Burn Her Body
New Delhi: An 18-year-old student, missing since Sunday, was found murdered in south Delhi's Mehrauli. Police claimed her boyfriend was jealous over her interactions with other boys and murdered her. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The victim's family, however, alleged harassment by the boy and claimed they were friends. The victim's father and sister alleged that the accused was harassing her since she stopped talking to him, and was following her. The accused, Arshkrit Singh, is an 18-year-old first-year BCom student at DU's School of Open Learning. The girl also studied at SOL. Police received a complaint on Sunday from the girl's mother that her daughter had left for classes at SOL in the morning, but was yet to return. "Around noon, the girl told her mother she would be back shortly. But she didn't return and her mother received a call from Singh's father that his son was attacked in Sanjay Van and hospitalised at Pitampura," police said. Her sister said, "We called him (accused) to inquire about my sister's whereabouts, but he claimed that she had attacked him with a knife." The complainant and her husband searched the area, but could not locate their daughter. She alleged that Singh, who had prior conflicts with the girl, might have abducted her. A kidnapping case was registered. Deputy commissioner of police (south) Ankit Chauhan said CCTV footage was reviewed and Singh was apprehended. He admitted to calling the girl to Sanjay Van and leading her to a secluded spot, where he killed her by stabbing and strangulation, Chauhan said. "After the attack, he tried to burn the body. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He sustained minor injuries during the stabbing and fled to a hospital for treatment. The body was recovered based on his information," the DCP added. The accused said he suspected the girl was talking to other boys, which led to arguments between them, and he planned the murder. Sections 103(1) (murder) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of BNS were added to the case. Singh was arrested and the crime weapon was recovered. The girl's father claimed the teenagers met at a party and became friends, but the boy pressured her not to communicate with anyone else, prompting his daughter to cut off contact with him five-six months ago. "We advised both of them not to meet, yet the youth would come to my house every couple of months to start arguments. We informed his parents too. Though he apologised, the harassment continued," the father said. He added the boy got to know that his daughter attended a Korean language class, and went there, starting an argument and twisting her hand. On the day of the incident, the father said, the girl went for SOL classes, and the boy messaged her through a fake social media ID of someone she knew. He waited in the park from 8.30am. She arrived a few hours later. "He told his father the girl attacked him. His father then contacted us, claiming she harmed his son," her father said, adding she had injuries on head and face, and her hairwasburnt.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Hotelier shot dead outside Ghaziabad condo gate, business partner main suspect
1 2 Ghaziabad: In a mob-style hit, a 35-year-old businessman was shot dead near the gates of his housing society in Raj Nagar Extension on Sunday night. Police said on Monday they had taken one suspect into custody and were looking for six others. The victim's business partner is the prime suspect. The gunmen came in a car that halted in front of Rahul Dagar, who owns a hotel at Haldwani in Uttarakhand, and his nephew Ashish just as they had stepped outside Classic Residency around 9.30 pm. Rahul died on the spot to a bullet injury he received in the stomach. Ashish was hit on the leg but survived. Rahul's brother-in-law Avinash Sirohi, who was nearby and also assaulted by the gunmen, claimed one of the attackers was the hotelier's business partner Nagendra Chaudhary. He also identified three other attackers as Mohit Chaudhary, Ritesh Bindal and a man who goes by the name Mantri. Ritesh has since been tracked and apprehended. Avinash claimed that Rahul, Nagendra, his brother Manish and their fourth partner recently had a fallout over managing the finances of their hotel, Shiva Palace. "Rahul opened the hotel with Nagendra, Manish and Sonia Bajaj. Recently, Rahul and Sonia's husband Sachin Sharma, the hotel's manager, had a disagreement with the Chaudhary brothers when they found Nagendra had been diverting the hotel's earnings to his personal account," Avinash stated in the complaint he filed at Nandgram police station. According to the complainant, around 9.15 pm on Sunday, Nagendra called Rahul and the two had a heated argument. "Nagendra kept threatening him with consequences. So, Rahul asked him to meet him outside Classic Residency. Around 5-7 minutes later, Nagendra, Mohit, Mantri, Ritesh and two other men pulled up outside the society in a car. First, they assaulted Rahul and Ashish. They turned to me as I started shouting for help. Then, right before my eyes, Nagendra and Mohit shot at Rahul and Ashish. Rahul had immediately collapsed to the ground, but Mohit sat on his chest and tried to strangle him," Avinash said. "Ashish was writhing in pain as the bullet had hit his leg, but Ritesh and Mantri kept telling the two brothers to kill him and the men and get to the car," the complainant claimed. The two survived the attack as people started to gather outside the society, and assailants fled in their car. DCP (City) Dhawal Jaiswal told TOI that FIR had been registered against seven persons, including the Chaudhary brothers Nagendra and Manish, Mohit, Ritesh, Mantri and two unknown persons under the BNS sections 103 (murder), 109 (attempt to murder), 115 (2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 190 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 191 (2) (rioting), 191 (3) (rioting, armed with deadly weapon). "Five teams were set up to track the accused. Ritesh was taken into police custody and is still being questioned to understand his role in the shootout," the officer said. The DCP said initial investigations revealed the two groups, or at least four to six of them, had dinner at a restaurant in Raj Nagar Extension on Sunday evening. A dispute broke out between the men after they left the restaurant. Police also claimed that a day before Rahul's murder, an FIR was filed against him and Avinash after a complaint was submitted by Ritesh, who claimed the two men had barged into his house last week with weapons and misbehaved with his family. ACP Nandgram Poonam Mishra said Ritesh owed Avinash Rs 5 lakh and Rahul another Rs 6.5 lakh. In his complaint, Ritesh claimed he had repaid the money, but on May 30, the two men barged into his house when he was not around and threatened his family. He also accused them of calling his wife and threatening to kill his son. The FIR was lodged under BNS sections 333 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 351 (3) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), the ACP said.
