Latest news with #BenchofJusticeVikramNath
News18
5 days ago
- Politics
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Five In Bengal Post-Poll Violence, Terms Attack ‘Assault On Democracy'
Last Updated: Calling the incident a 'grave attack on the roots of democracy,' the Court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks or face coercive action The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Calcutta High Court's orders granting bail to five men accused in a post-poll violence case involving rioting, assault, and an attempt to rape in West Bengal. Calling the incident a 'grave attack on the roots of democracy," the Court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks or face coercive action. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the High Court's bail orders dated 24 January 2023 and 13 April 2023. The accused — Sekh Jamir, Sekh Nurai, Sekh Asraf @ Sk Rahul @ Asraf, Jayanta Dome, and Sekh Kabirul — were arrested in connection with an incident that occurred on 2 May 2021, the day the West Bengal Assembly election results were declared. Facts of the Case According to the complainant, a Hindu resident of Gumsima village in Birbhum district, the accused were part of a mob that attacked his home with bombs, sticks, iron rods, and firearms in retaliation for his support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He alleged that he and his family were assaulted, their home looted, and that his wife was disrobed and molested during the attack. The violence was reportedly led by another accused, Sekh Mahim, and the mob was estimated to have consisted of 40–50 people. Court's Observations The Court strongly criticised the High Court's decision to grant bail in such a serious case. 'The present one is a case wherein the allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the Court," the Bench said. 'Furthermore, there is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial," it said. The Court noted that the assault appeared to be a 'concerted act of vengeance" for the complainant's political allegiance. 'The concerted attack on the complainant's house was launched on the day of the election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party," the Court said. It added, 'This is a grave circumstance which convinces us that the accused persons… were trying to terrorise the members of the opposite political party." The Bench described the conduct of the accused as an effort to subdue political opponents 'by hook or by crook," saying the incident amounted to an 'attack on the roots of democracy." The Court also took serious note of the local police's refusal to register the complainant's FIR. The complainant had gone to the Sadaipur Police Station on 3 May 2021, but the officer-in-charge allegedly refused to register a case and advised the family to leave the village for their safety. The Court said this substantiated the complainant's fear about the influence wielded by the accused. The FIR was eventually registered by the CBI on 16 December 2021, after the Calcutta High Court, in a separate batch of writ petitions, directed the central agency to investigate all post-poll violence cases involving murder and crimes against women. The CBI subsequently filed a charge sheet under Sections 34, 148, 149, 326, 354, 511, read with 376D and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasised that the law on bail and its cancellation is well-settled. While bail granted should not ordinarily be cancelled, it may be revoked if the allegations are grave, if the accused are likely to tamper with evidence, or if their continued liberty threatens the integrity of the trial. It found that there was prima facie material suggesting that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and committed serious offences, including the attempted sexual assault of the complainant's wife. It further noted that the trial had not progressed since the filing of the charge sheet in 2022, attributing the delay to the accused's non-cooperation. 'There is no apparent distinction between the roles of the accused respondents and others who disrobed the complainant's wife," the Court said. 'The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the likelihood of the accused interfering with a fair trial, justifies cancellation of bail," it added. The Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. Failing this, coercive steps are to be taken to ensure their presence. Upon surrender or arrest, they will be remanded to judicial custody. To ensure justice is not further delayed, the Court ordered the trial court to conclude the trial within six months. It vacated any stay on the proceedings and directed the Home Secretary and Director General of Police of West Bengal to ensure the safety of the complainant and key witnesses. Any violation is to be immediately reported to the Court by the CBI or the complainant. About the Author Sukriti Mishra Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: May 31, 2025, 17:26 IST
News18
6 days ago
- News18
'Manipulative & Vindictive': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Over False Marriage Promise
Last Updated: The Court found that the allegations were riddled with inconsistencies and malicious intent, and were filed with the objective of harassing the accused. The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a rape case filed against a man accused of sexual assault under the pretext of a false promise of marriage, observing that the complainant's conduct appeared to be vindictive, manipulative, and an abuse of the criminal justice process. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against him, including FIR No. 103 of 2022. The Court found that the allegations were riddled with inconsistencies and malicious intent, and were filed with the objective of harassing the accused. The case arose after the complainant, a well-educated and major woman, initially lodged an FIR alleging certain incidents without disclosing key facts. Subsequently, she filed a second FIR in which she accused the appellant of multiple incidents of forcible sexual intercourse and alleged that the accused had refused to marry her due to her caste identity, leading to the addition of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, on examining the material on record, including WhatsApp chats and other communications, the Court found that the complainant had a pattern of threatening criminal proceedings against men who refused to marry her. In some of her chats, she admitted to 'irritating" her partners to the point that they would leave her, allowing her to 'move on to the next one." She also spoke about targeting individuals for personal gain, including 'trying to get a green-card holder" and needing to 'invest on the next victim." 'These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendency," the Court observed. The Bench noted that the accused was justified in withdrawing from the proposed marriage upon discovering the aggressive and obsessive nature of the complainant. 'Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant," the Court stated. Significantly, the Court took strong exception to the belated invocation of the SC/ST Act in the second FIR. Justice Nath, authoring the judgment, held that the caste-based allegations were clearly an afterthought, introduced merely to invoke more stringent provisions and pressurise the accused. 'Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community," the Bench stated. The Court found that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to an abuse of process of law. It noted that the allegations in the FIR were fabricated, malicious, and devoid of substance. 'The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy," the Court concluded. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and all pending criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR were quashed. First Published: May 30, 2025, 13:12 IST
