Latest news with #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 hours ago
- General
- Business Standard
Calcutta HC refuses bail to Panoli for controversial remarks amid tensions
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim bail to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who is accused of making controversial remarks against a community in the context of Operation Sindoor—coordinated missile strikes conducted by the Indian armed forces. According to a LiveLaw report, Panoli challenged a remand order issued by a trial court, which had placed her in judicial custody for 14 days. Court stresses caution in diverse society While denying bail, the court listed the matter before the next vacation bench and stated, 'This video was made on social media, it was heard, this incident has led to a section of people's sentiment being hurt. Look, we have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others. Our country is diverse, with people from different castes, creeds, religions, etc. We must be cautious by saying this. So, day after tomorrow. Heavens will not fall.' Panoli faces legal action for blasphemous content Panoli, a law student at Symbiosis Law School, allegedly made blasphemous remarks against Prophet Mohammad on her social media accounts. After facing backlash for the offensive video, she deleted it and issued a public apology. Despite this, she was arrested in Gurugram by Kolkata Police. Defence argues arrest violated due process under BNSS Her counsel argued that the arrest was illegal, stating the offences listed in the FIR were non-cognisable. The counsel also contended that Panoli had not been served a notice prior to arrest, which is required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The state counsel responded that a notice had been issued but could not be served because Panoli had fled with her family. Next hearing set for June 5; case diary requested The High Court directed the West Bengal government to produce the case diary related to Panoli's arrest at the next hearing, scheduled for 5 June. Operation Sindoor: military response to Pahalgam attack On 7 May, the Indian armed forces launched coordinated missile strikes on terrorist infrastructure at nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The strikes were in retaliation for the 22 April terror attack in Pahalgam.
New Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Tuni arson case: Government to file appeal in Andhra HC against acquittal judgment
VIJAYAWADA: In a major development, the State government on Monday directed the public prosecutors to file an appeal in the High Court against the acquittal judgment passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Railways in Vijayawada on May 1, 2023 pertaining to the Tuni arson case. The order issued by the principal secretary (Home), Kumar Viswajeet, further instructed the public prosecutor to file the appeal petition along with delay condonation petition and duly specifying the reasons for delay to avoid further legal complications. 'Government, after careful examination of the matter and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No.46 of 2023), hereby direct the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, to prefer an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal judgment passed by the railway court,' read the GO.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Telangana man ‘dies by suicide' after father fails to buy him BMW
A 21-year-old man in Telangana's Siddipet district allegedly died by suicide on Friday after his parents, who work as agricultural labourers, told him that they could not afford to buy him a BMW car. The deceased had studied up to Class 10 and was assisting his parents with agricultural labour. The sub-inspector of the local police station told that the deceased had been upset of late and was addicted to alcohol. 'His parents own two acres of agricultural land. He had been unemployed after discontinuing studies. He wanted a better life with a modern house and a BMW car. He had been pressuring his parents for a while and got addicted to alcohol,' the officer said. According to the police complaint filed by the father of the deceased, the man had been yearning to buy a BMW car, even threatening his father with suicide if he did not agree to purchase him one. The father tried to reason with him, explaining their difficult financial situation. Finally, they offered to buy him a Maruti Swift Dzire instead. On Friday, the complainant and his son visited a car showroom in Siddipet. On being told that he would get a Swift Dzire instead, the man appeared to be disappointed and worried that his parents were not willing to buy him the car he wanted. Later that day, around 3.30 pm, the man allegedly attempted to kill himself and informed his father who, along with his elder brother, rushed him to a government hospital on their motorbike. After initial treatment there, the man was transferred to RVM Hospital for specialised care. However, he succumbed on Saturday night, the police said. Officers have registered a case under section 194 (police to enquire and report on suicide) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and have started investigating.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC quashes trial court order in ED's Rathi Steel case over BNSS lapse
The Supreme Court has set aside the cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) taken by a lower court in a money laundering trial involving M/s Rathi Steel and its top executive, who were booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a coal allocation case . A division bench comprising Justices AS Oka (who retired last month) and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the cognisance order dated November 20, 2024, solely on the ground of "non-compliance" with new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions require trial courts to issue a show-cause notice to an accused before summoning them to face trial. Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED's complaint, the bench directed executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal to appear before the trial court on July 14, "so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS." The order also stated, "We make it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special (trial) Court to the appellant (Agarwal)." Section 223 of the BNSS applies specifically to "complaints" and not to cases investigated by the police or the CBI. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the petitioners, argued that under Section 223, accused persons are entitled to be heard before being summoned by the trial court. He emphasized that this section stipulates that "no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard." In response, ED's counsel argued that under the new BNSS provision, the hearing granted to the accused is limited to determining whether a case is made out to proceed based solely on the complaint and its accompanying documents. The ED further contended that cognisance is taken of the offence-not the offender. Thus, once cognisance is taken, it need not be taken again when supplementary or further complaints are filed. "Therefore, at that stage, there will be no occasion to give the accused the opportunity to be heard," the ED's counsel argued. Addressing these arguments, the Supreme Court stated in its order that the ED's submissions "need not be considered, as the same do not arise in this appeal at this stage." However, it added, "We make it clear that the said contentions are expressly kept open and can be raised before the Special Court."
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court quashes cognisance in ED case against Rathi Steel & Its
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) taken by a lower court in a money laundering trial involving M/s Rathi Steel and its top executive, who were booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a coal allocation case.A division bench comprising Justices AS Oka (who retired last month) and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the cognisance order dated November 20, 2024, solely on the ground of "non-compliance" with new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions require trial courts to issue a show-cause notice to an accused before summoning them to face that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED's complaint, the bench directed executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal to appear before the trial court on July 14, "so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS." The order also stated, "We make it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special (trial) Court to the appellant (Agarwal)."Section 223 of the BNSS applies specifically to "complaints" and not to cases investigated by the police or the CBI. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the petitioners, argued that under Section 223, accused persons are entitled to be heard before being summoned by the trial court. He emphasized that this section stipulates that "no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard."In response, ED's counsel argued that under the new BNSS provision, the hearing granted to the accused is limited to determining whether a case is made out to proceed based solely on the complaint and its accompanying ED further contended that cognisance is taken of the offence-not the offender. Thus, once cognisance is taken, it need not be taken again when supplementary or further complaints are filed. "Therefore, at that stage, there will be no occasion to give the accused the opportunity to be heard," the ED's counsel these arguments, the Supreme Court stated in its order that the ED's submissions "need not be considered, as the same do not arise in this appeal at this stage." However, it added, "We make it clear that the said contentions are expressly kept open and can be raised before the Special Court."
