Rajasthan horror: Man chases, shoots dead 25 dogs in 2 days; video sparks outrage
The video footage captures two individuals on a motorcycle pursuing and shooting stray dogs with a rifle, leaving their blood-soaked bodies strewn across village streets and fields.A third person, riding a separate motorcycle, is partially visible in the footage, trailing the duo and recording the incident. Authorities are still determining whether this individual was complicit in the crime.Superintendent of Police Brijesh Jyoti Upadhyay confirmed that an investigation was launched on August 4 after the video spread across social media. A case has been filed against Bavaria under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.While the accused remains at large, police are actively pursuing his arrest and investigating potential involvement of other locals, as suggested by the video."We are aware of the video showing a person shooting at dogs in Kumawas village. Immediate steps were taken to investigate the matter," Upadhyay said.Animal lovers and villagers have strongly condemned this brutal act and demanded strict action. Police have assured of early arrest. Some aware people of the area have also informed the central government and its high officials and ministers about this entire matter. (Inputs: Himanshu Sharma)- Ends
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC slaps fine of ₹25,000 for ‘false' petition; cites suppression of facts
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court, on August 1, slapped a ₹25,000 fine on a man for filing a false petition where he claimed he was illegally arrested and was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Based on his medical records, the court noted that he was never in police custody. HC slaps fine of ₹ 25,000 for 'false' petition; cites suppression of facts Ashish Virendra Pratap Singh, claimed that he has been falsely implicated by Devendra Jagdish Singh for offences under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable securities and wills), 471 (using forged document as genuine) and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. He told the court that the FIR was registered on January 16, 2025 at the Mumbra Police Station, Thane, where Singh was named the co-accused. In Singh's petition he alleged that the police arrested him on January 17, and he was taken to various hospitals for medical examinations and routine check ups while he was still in police custody. His advocate Ashok Dubey told the court that the arrest was illegal, and Singh had not been produced before the magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period following his arrest. Dubey added that this was a violation of his fundamental right, and demanded the court to offer him relief and order the police not to further arrest him. However, additional public prosecutor SV Gavand opposed the petition and asked for it to be dismissed with a heavy penalty. Gavand told the court that Singh had suppressed vital facts and not mentioned that he had appealed for anticipatory bail, a plea that was rejected on June 25. He added, 'This petition, filed on July 14, makes no disclosure of this crucial development.' Gavand told the court that after Singh's anticipatory bail was rejected, he had filed this petition to indirectly get a court order which would stop the police from arresting him. He added that Singh's medical records showed that he was advised to go to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, but instead chose to seek treatment at other private hospitals. While Singh claimed that he had been in police custody during his hospital visits, Gavand told the court that he had been taken to the hospitals by his relatives. A division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad carefully examined his hospital records and noted that he was not an 'arrestee' at the time he was admitted. The medical record indicated that after Singh declined admission to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital on January 17, he admitted himself to Navkaar Hospital. Singh's discharge summary proved that his relatives had asked for him to be transferred to another hospital, and there was no mention of the police admitting him to the hospital. This indicated that he was not in police custody and was accompanied by his family. The court said that the medical records established, beyond any doubt, that Singh had not been in police custody at any point. Therefore, his claim of being arrested and not produced before the magistrate was entirely false, the court added. 'Since he was not under arrest, the question of his production before the magistrate does not arise', the court noted. The court also held that the deliberate suppression of facts was a serious error. 'The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court with unclean hands', the bench said. The court highlighted that Singh was attempting a 'second bite at the cherry' by seeking relief from the court after his anticipatory bail was rejected earlier. The court observed that Singh's petition was cleverly drafted by suppressing facts and essentially aimed to protect him from any coercive actions by the police. The court declined to grant any relief to Singh and allowed the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The court dismissed Singh's petition calling it false and an abuse of the process of law. The bench imposed a ₹25,000 fine on Singh which he must deposit within 21 days.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Post demoliton of ‘caste wall', security tightened at Muthuladampatti in Karur
Security has been tightened at Muthuladampatti in Karur district, where an 'untouchability wall', built by Thottia Naicker community, an intermediate caste, allegedly to prevent access to people belonging to Scheduled Caste, was demolished on Saturday. The task of demolition of the structure began at 3.30 p.m on Saturday and came to an end at 2.30 a.m on Sunday. In spite of heavy rain the demolition work, which was done by the intermediate caste as per the 'direction and direct supervision' of the revenue officials, was completed at a stretch. While the wall was dismantled around 9.30 p.m, it took five more hours for them to destroy the structure's foundation. The entire operation was carried out amid tight security. An uneasy calm has been prevailing at Muthuladampatti, where the Thottia Naickers and the Arunthathiyars live at separate settlements, in the aftermath of the demolition of the wall. As a precautionary measure, police picketing has been posted at various places of the hamlets. Superintendent of Police Josh K. Thangaiah told The Hindu no untoward incident was reported so far at Muthuladampatti. However, round the clock security would be in place until further orders. Plain cloth policemen were asked to closely monitor the situation. Normalcy would be restored soon. He said considering the sensitive nature of the issue, the members of both groups at Muthuladampatti were warned not to escalate the situation. The members, who had pressed for the demolition of the wall, were advised not to celebrate the dismantle of it in any manner. While stating it was a teamwork, Mr. Thangaiah said the operation was completed without any issue. A series of direct and indirect talks were held by bringing the leaders of both the caste groups on a table. They (Thottia Naickers) had understood the 'gravity of the situation' and agreed upon to dismantle on their own without waiting for the officials to raze down the wall.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Rash driving by private buses in Kochi: Section 106(2) delay weakens road safety push
Kochi: A city police report submitted to the high court a few days ago called for urgent action to tackle the public safety threat posed by private bus drivers with serious criminal backgrounds, including narcotics-related charges. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The report revealed that in the three weeks preceding its submission, 40 cases were registered against drivers for operating vehicles under the influence of alcohol or drugs. P J Anoop of Palluruthy, accused in a fatal crash at Menka bus stop, faces 11 criminal cases, and proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (Kaapa) have been initiated agianst him. Police records show that he is a repeat offender, with cases under the NDPS Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Kerala Police Act, and Motor Vehicles Act, registered at stations including Palluruthy, Thoppumpady, and Traffic West. Another driver, Benny Emmanuel of Ernakulam, faces nine criminal cases. Former director general of prosecution T Asaf Ali told TOI that although the IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a key provision—Section 106(2)—which penalises causing death by rash and negligent driving followed by absconding without reporting, has not yet been enforced. Under the old IPC, Section 304A prescribed imprisonment of up to two years for causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The BNS raises the stakes: Section 106(2) allows imprisonment of up to 10 years. But since it remains unenforced, authorities currently invoke Section 106(1)—a bailable offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years' simple imprisonment. Ali stressed that immediate implementation of Section 106(2) is essential to provide a stronger deterrent against dangerous driving.
