Undertrial prisoner from Uttarakhand killed by fellow inmate during clash in Bijnor jail
In connection with the incident, the Kotwali police booked a case of culpable homicide against Zakib, 24, a resident of Bijnor who has been in jail since October 2023 on charges under the Indian Penal Code (robbery), the Gangsters Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Ravindra Nath, Jailor, Bijnor district jail, said on Saturday that the administration was informed about a clash between two undertrials in barrack number 13-B. A jail team immediately rushed to the spot and found Ashu Chauhan badly injured and unconscious, bleeding heavily. He was promptly taken to the jail hospital and later referred to the district hospital, where doctors declared him dead during treatment.
The news of the death caused panic inside the jail, the officer said.
During the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that Ashu and Zakib's beds were placed next to each other. A dispute arose over the cleaning of the bed, which soon escalated into a heated argument, followed by an altercation.
The situation soon turned violent and other jail inmates rushed inside the barrack and intervened, but Chauhan had sustained serious injuries by that time, according to officials.
The body has been sent for a postmortem and its report is awaited.
Jail officials denied having received any prior information about any dispute between Chauhan and Zakib.
Chauhan's family reached the jail from Uttarakhand after being informed of his death. His body will handed over to his family after the postmortem.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi court grants custody parole to MP Engineer Rashid to attend Parliament
A Delhi court on Tuesday granted custody parole to jailed Lok Sabha MP Engineer Rashid from July 24 to August 4 to attend the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On the other hand, his interim bail plea was rejected. Rashid had argued in court that he should either be granted interim bail or permission to attend Parliament in custody, without payment of travel costs, as he was seeking to attend Parliament as his public duty and not for personal work. Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh, however, imposed travel costs on him. Rashid's lawyers are likely to challenge the order in Delhi High Court. Rashid had defeated National Conference leader Omar Abdullah in Baramulla by 2 lakh plus votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. He has been lodged in Tihar jail since 2019 in an eight-year-old terror funding case. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested Rashid on August 9, 2019, four days after the abrogation of Article 370 and the removal of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. The NIA's case is that Rashid used various public platforms to 'propagate the ideology of separatism and secessionism', and was closely associated with various terrorist organisations. The agency had also alleged that he wanted to 'legitimise' the United Jihad Council (UJC), a platform of anti-India militant groups in J-K. Charges were framed against Rashid in March 2022 under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121 (waging war against the government), and 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code and for offences relating to terrorist acts and terror funding under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). However, Rashid has maintained that the NIA has only produced an old Facebook post and statements of two protected witnesses to implicate him. He has also argued that he has already been discharged under sections 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA, which pertain to being part of a terrorist organisation and lending support to it.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law. According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted. These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes. In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform. Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review. view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:27 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Thane Court Acquits Man Of Abducting Nephew As Key Witnesses Turn Hostile
Thane: A Thane court has acquitted a 36-year-old man accused of kidnapping the minor son of his wife's sister in 2023, as prime witnesses in the case, turned hostile. Additional Sessions Judge V G Mohite, in the order passed on July 18, said the prosecution has failed to bring on record incriminating evidence to prove the incident of kidnapping of child by the accused for ransom. A copy of the order was made available on Wednesday. The accused, who has been in judicial custody since October 28, 2023, was ordered to be released immediately subject to any other legal proceedings pending against him. The prosecution alleged that on October 25, 2023, the accused went to the house of his wife's sister in Kalwa area of Maharashtra's Thane city and took away her one-and-a-half-year-old son under the pretext of giving him sweets. He refused to return the child unless his estranged wife agreed to go with him. The police later alleged the accused demanded Rs 2,000 to release the child. The accused faced charges under sections 363 (kidnapping), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 365 (wrongful confinement) and 384 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code. Defence counsel Sagar Kolhe contested the charges against the accused. During the trial, the child's mother, who is the complainant, turned hostile. She testified the accused had returned the child safely and that she lodged the complaint in anger over a domestic dispute. Judge Mohite said, "Informant is the mother of the minor accused came to her took away her some time, the accused brought him back to the house. However, due to anger she has filed the complaint against the accused for kidnapping of her son." The court further noted that even during cross-examination by the public prosecutor, the complainant denied the child was held for ransom or that the accused demanded money. The second key witness, who is the complainant's sister and the accused's wife, also did not support the prosecution. She denied her police statement that the accused demanded ransom, and insisted she had no complaint against him. With both prime witnesses turning hostile, the prosecution opted not to examine the remaining witnesses. The court acknowledged the background of a family dispute which appeared to have triggered the case. According to the defence, the accused and his wife had been living separately due to a marital rift. On the day of the incident, the accused had visited Kalwa to enquire about his wife's whereabouts. When he was refused information, he briefly took the child and then returned him unharmed. The court accepted this version, especially in the absence of a credible evidence to the contrary. "The prosecution has failed to bring on record incriminating evidence to prove the incident of kidnapping of child by accused for ransom. Witness has denied demand of has not adduced reliable direct as well as circumstantial evidence... accused is entitled to get acquittal," the court said.
