Nine suspected Rohingyas detained in Assam's Cachar
Residents of Bishwanbharpur village in Katigorah area near the border spotted a group of unfamiliar people and after questioning them, handed them over to the police on Tuesday night (August 12, 2025).
Nearly 1,50,000 Rohingya fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh in 18 months: United Nations refugee agency
'The detained persons claimed that they had entered India illegally around 20 years ago and were working in Hyderabad in different capacities,' the police officer said. 'During interrogation, they said they wanted to return to Bangladesh as they had relatives there and two middlemen had promised to help them cross the border,' he said.
Supreme Court agrees to hear pleas on the status of Rohingyas as 'refugees', their deportation
The nine detained persons who claimed they were Rohingyas had travelled by train from Hyderabad and were taken by a middleman to a forest near the border where they stayed for the whole day without any food or water.
'It was in the evening that they came out of the forest in search of food when they were spotted by the locals,' he said. 'They were brought to Silchar and further investigation was under way,' the officer added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bail on medical grounds meant for emergencies, not for attending social galas: SC
Bengaluru: The Supreme Court observed that actor Darshan, accused number 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, had obtained bail on misrepresentation of medical grounds. "The bail order dated 13 Dec 2024, passed by the Karnataka high court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st respondent/A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated," a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed. Contrary to the impression created before the high court, Darshan made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post his release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise, the bench added. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru The Supreme Court consistently held that the bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions, as seen in the State of UP vs Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh MN vs State of Gujarat cases. The discharge summary dated Nov 28, 2024, issued by the hospital, mentions that Darshan is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG (coronary artery bypass grafting) surgery in future. However, the report does not indicate any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention, any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release, or any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for the grant of bail, the bench added. In the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan case, this court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail." The burden to prove such necessity lies on the accused. In the present case, the accused failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the high court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs State of West Bengal, the top court observed while setting aside the bail granted by the high court single bench judge Justice S Vishwajith Shetty to Darshan. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Consenting Adults Have Right To Choose Partners, Live Together: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has called the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together "a facet of their personal liberty and privacy" being immune to the family's disapproval. "The Supreme court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm," Justice Sanjeev Narula said on August 5. The court, as a result, directed the police to provide protection to a young couple, who married against the wishes of their families and were now being threatened. "The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy," the order highlighted. The couple sought the court's intervention to ensure their safety in living together, claiming threats, coercion and interference being extended by the family members. The court was urged to direct the woman's family not to harm them or interfere in their peaceful cohabitation. The plea said the woman's family was against their relationship and allegedly issued repeated threats of physical harm. It said due to the hostility and fearing for her safety, the woman left her parental home on July 18 after informing her mother about her intention to marry the man. The couple married in a temple on July 23 on their own free will and has been living together happily, it added. The high court then directed the station house office of the police station concerned to designate an official and sensitise him or her of the court order and provide immediate assistance to the couple in case of any complaint or threat. "The directions issued herein, particularly those concerning police protection, are purely preventive in nature, aimed at ensuring the petitioners' safety and safeguarding their right to life and liberty. They shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the truthfulness of the petitioners' claims, nor as any endorsement," it said. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Granting bail to Darshan depicts non-application of mind: SC to Karnataka HC
Bengaluru: Cancelling the bail granted to actor Darshan and his six aides in the Renukaswamy murder case, the Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the order of the Karnataka high court depicted "non-application of mind. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now " The apex court noted that courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage. On Dec 13, 2024, the high court single bench judge Justice S Vishwajith Shetty had granted regular bail to Darshan (accused number 2), Pavithra Gowda (accused no 1) along with other accused - R Nagaraju, Anu Kumar alias Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh alias Jagga, and Pradoosh S Rao — on grounds of non-furnishing of a memo of grounds of arrest as per the mandate of CrPC, several inconsistencies in statements of witnesses etc. The state govt challenged the verdict. Now, after 244 days, the Supreme Court reversed the order. During the course of hearing the appeals, the SC bench of Justice JB Paridiwala and R Mahadevan even remarked that the high court had handed out "an acquittal order to the accused". The bench, in the 66-page order, stated: "In the present case, the high court failed to properly evaluate the nature of allegations, involving premeditated murder and conspiracy, attracting Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC; the chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, call records, and the forensic report showing a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence (e.g. , disposal of blood-stained clothes and vehicle cleaning); and the incriminating role of A2 (Darshan), who was in constant touch with A1 (Pavithra Gowda) and other co-accused before and after the incident, and who facilitated the conspiracy and cover-up. On the other hand, it simply recorded that A2 (Darshan) had 'no direct role' and there was 'no prima facie case', without discussing or analysing the incriminating material on record. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This amounts to non-application of mind and renders the order unsustainable in law." By treating Darshan's stature as a mitigating factor, the high court committed a "manifest perversity" in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting the cancellation of bail. "A2 is not a common undertrial. He enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout, and financial muscle. His conduct inside the jail – including recorded instances of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules, and registered FIRs for misuse of facilities – reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody. If a person can subvert the prison system, the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, and tampering with the course of justice is both real and imminent," the top court observed. Misconduct & influence Moreover, Darshan's immediate return to social events sharing a stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is a threat to the integrity of the proceedings, the court noted. "Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder sends the wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system. Accordingly, the accused's antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail," the SC stated. It noted that on a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the high court court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the high court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays – issues that are inherently matters for the trial court to assess through cross-examination. The trial court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses, the SC observed.
