Latest news with #AmitSharma
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Cash-for-sex scandal': Punjab and Haryana HC disposes of PIL, asks petitioner to approach magistrate
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday disposed of a public interest litigation seeking forensic analysis of audio clips allegedly involving a senior IPS officer in an alleged cash-for-sex scandal, directing the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). A division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, with Justice Sanjiv Berry, passed the order during resumed hearing of the matter. The case had earlier come up on May 5, when a bench comprising Chief Justice Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel had directed the State of Punjab to file its response. The petitioner, Supreme Court Advocate Nikhil Saraf, represented by Advocate Amit Sharma, had sought an independent forensic examination of two viral audio recordings and the disclosure of the name of the officer allegedly referred to by a woman constable during her arrest under the NDPS Act. Appearing for the State of Punjab and the Director General of Police, Senior Advocate Salil Sabhlok questioned the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that the audio clips were 'inaudible, doctored and unverified,' and argued that the petition was motivated, lacked genuine public interest, and had been filed without exhausting available remedies. He also submitted that the complaint against the officer was still pending before the DGP. In response, Advocate Amit Sharma argued that the affidavit filed by the State 'appeared to have been submitted without even reading the petition.' He submitted that the State had failed to address the material placed on record, including evidence of systemic failures, prior judicial findings of breakdowns in criminal enforcement, and continued institutional inaction despite specific court directions. 'This petition is not about any single officer,' Sharma told the bench. 'It brings to light a larger pattern of silence, complicity, and selective protection.' He referred the court to several annexures, including High Court orders documenting delayed FIRs in rape and murder cases, instances of non-compliance with court directions, and the imposition of ₹1 lakh costs on the officer now at the centre of the present petition. Sharma also reminded the bench that in another case, the same DGP had submitted that a gangster's interview had not taken place in Punjab, a claim later contradicted by official records, prompting the court to seek an affidavit in that matter as well. He further submitted that the petitioner had approached multiple statutory bodies, including the DGP, the Chief Minister's Office, the State Women's Commission, and the Police Complaints Authority, but none had taken action. 'If the State believes the audio recordings are false or inaudible, the remedy lies in forensic analysis, not institutional denial,' Sharma argued. After hearing both sides, the bench disposed of the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned under appropriate provisions of BNSS. It also observed that if the Magistrate failed to act, the petitioner would be at liberty to return to the High Court.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
No bar on parole, furlough if appeal pending in SC: HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday clarified that prison authorities are empowered to decide pleas for parole and furlough of inmates even if their appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. It answered a reference received from a single judge that emerged from a challenge to the Delhi Prison Rules filed by several former policemen serving jail terms in the notorious Hashimpura massacre case of Uttar Pradesh. "Thus, the Delhi Prison Rules do not bar consideration of parole and furlough if the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. It is an altogether different question as to whether, in the facts of a specific case, the prison authorities ought to grant parole or furlough if the Supreme Court is seized of the matter either in a special leave petition or in an appeal. The grant or non-grant of parole and furlough on merits would depend on the facts of each case," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma held. The court pointed out that there could be a situation where the apex court may have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict. "The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances, and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough," it noted. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure your family's future! ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "In such cases," HC said, "a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict." The bench emphasised that the mere fact that the authorities could exercise power did not mean parole or furlough ought to be granted as a matter of right, and whether relief could be granted or not was a different issue altogether and depended on the facts of each case. Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release of a convict from jail. While parole is granted to the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. The high court was dealing with a batch of petitions by the convicts whose plea for furlough was not entertained essentially on the ground that their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. "To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a special leave petition or appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations," it highlighted. The court put an end to an earlier interpretation of Rule 1224 of jail that barred parole/furlough being granted if the appeal is pending in the high court. Later, a court ruling extended the bar to also the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court, which was reversed on Tuesday by the bigger bench. The high court sent each of the petitioners back to the bench that was hearing their plea for parole/furlough, noting that a decision must be made in light of the reference answered by it.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Prison authorities can decide on furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in Supreme Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that prison authorities can decide on parole or furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in the Supreme Court. The court was hearing a challenge to Delhi's prison rules by convicts in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre. The convicts had specifically challenged Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, after their requests for furlough were denied by jail authorities earlier. The said provision reads: 'If an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court.' Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, 'The fact that 'Supreme Court' had not been incorporated in Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules is further fortified from the fact that various other provisions in the Prison Rules have referred to 'Supreme Court' in various circumstances, and therefore, non-mentioning of 'Supreme Court' in the Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules cannot be considered as an omission. The intention of the Competent Authority while drafting the Rules is clear from the plain language itself that what was restricted was grant of parole/furlough to convicts whose appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court and not Hon'ble Supreme Court.' The division bench further held that 'since mere pendency of Criminal Appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per Rules by the Competent Authority and the same would be subject to judicial the High Court'. It added that the prison rule provision cannot be interpreted to consider a bar on either the convicts' right to apply for furlough if their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. During the 1987 Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the accused, who were posted for riot control following communal riots, rounded up around 42-45 Muslim men and took them away in a truck. They were later shot, and the bodies were dumped in the Gang Nahar and Hindon canal. Of the 38 who were killed, the bodies of only 11 were identified by families. The remaining bodies were not recovered. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice S Muralidhar, reversed the 2015 acquittal of 16 former members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the Hashimpura massacre case, and held them guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Delhi High Court also set aside a single judge's interpretation in an order in July 2023, which had held that the 'high court' in the above provision implies any appellate court, which would then include the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court. The convicts, whose criminal appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, had challenged the rejection of their furlough request by the prison authorities. The latest court ruling means that the high court can now hear their petitions seeking a review of the prison authorities' rejection. The division bench in its order held, 'To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a Special Leave Petition or Appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations.' 'It cannot be expected that every convict would have to compulsorily approach the Supreme Court for temporary release or emergent release in grave situations, including medical exigencies of the convict, demise in the family, any emergency involving children of the convict, etc… The Delhi Prison Rules are categorical and clear that Rule 1224 bars parole/furlough being granted only if the appeal is pending in the High Court. This bar cannot be extended to the Supreme Court by way of judicial interpretation when the language does not read as such,' the order added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Authorities can decide parole, furlough when appeal pending in SC: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled prison authorities can decide a plea of parole and furlough even when the matter was pending in the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Pratibha M Singh and Amit Sharma observed the Delhi Prison Rules did not bar consideration of parole and furlough if a convict's appeal against the conviction was pending in the Supreme Court. The bench, however, noted whether the relief could be granted or not was a different issue altogether and depended on the facts of each case. Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release of convict from jail. "It is an altogether different question as to whether in the facts of a specific case, the prison authorities ought to grant parole or furlough, if the Supreme Court is seized of the matter either in a Special Leave Petition or in an Appeal. The grant or non grant of the parole and furlough on merit would depend on the facts of each case," the bench said. While parole is granted to the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. There could be a situation in which the Supreme Court might have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict, the bench said. "In such cases," the high court said, "a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict." The bench clarified that the mere fact that the authorities could exercise power did not mean parole or furlough ought to be granted as a matter of right. "The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough." According to the bench, the Delhi Prison Rules couldn't be interpreted to hold that the right of prisoners to apply for parole or furlough was barred when their criminal appeal or special leave petition were pending before the Supreme Court. "Mere pendency of criminal appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per rules by the competent authority and the same would be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court," it said. The power to suspend sentence and grant bail was observed to be distinct from the power to grant parole or furlough. "Thus, while appeals are pending before a higher forum, grant of parole and furlough can be considered as per the applicable prison rules by the jail authorities," it added. The court was hearing a batch of petitoins on the legal issue.
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi High Court reduces convict's jail term from 30 to 20 years in rape case
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reduced the 30-year jail term handed to a man convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, cutting it down to 20 years after considering his good conduct in prison. Justice Amit Sharma, in an order dated July 11, noted that the man had been in custody since April 6, 2015, and had served as a safai sahayak (cleaning assistant) while maintaining an overall satisfactory jail record. 'The trial court while sentencing the present appellant for a period of 30 years under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n) of the IPC has recorded that the offence committed by the appellant was heinous in nature and, therefore, the sentence awarded was justified. There is no doubt that the offence committed by the present appellant is extremely grave,' the Court observed, while allowing partial modification of the sentence. The man had approached the High Court challenging the 2013 judgment of the trial court that found him guilty of repeatedly raping a minor girl, who lived in his neighbourhood. The incident came to light when the girl, along with her mother, approached police on April 4, 2015. The girl told police that in December 2014, when no one else was home, the accused came to her house, offered her food, showed her obscene images on his phone and sexually assaulted her. She also alleged that he slapped and threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the abuse. Later, when the minor experienced stomach pain, her mother took her to a doctor. Medical examination revealed she was pregnant. Doctors advised a medical termination of pregnancy. DNA samples were collected and sent to the forensic science laboratory. Following investigation, the man was convicted under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of a minor), Section 450 (house trespass), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. He was also held guilty under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, relating to penetrative sexual assault. However, he was acquitted of the charge of sexual harassment.
