A Justice Ashok Bhushan led bench of the Supreme Court will today hear an anticipatory bail plea filed by former Punjab Director General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini---an accused in the 1991 Balwant Singh Multani murder case
Saini has challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s September 7 order dismissing his anticipatory bail plea in the Multani kidnapping and murder case.
@PunjabPoliceInd have also filed a caveat to pre-empt Saini from getting any ex-parte relief from the top court.
Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi appears for Saini: This is a very serious matter. My client has risen from the ranks who became the DGP. he was a decorated officer and was in the thick of militancy in Punjab. He suffered 5 bullet injuries.
Rohatgi: When Multani, the assailant had escaped from jail. After his escape, his father filed a habeas corpus. It was rejected as state said he escaped since he was a proclaimed offender.
Rohatgi: court had entertained an IA by the father of Multani to find what happened to his son. The judge started the matter in an already disposed off the matter. State govt appealed this. SC held judge had no fresh material to order a CBI probe and thus it was quashed
Rohatgi: SC however said that the father can still file a complaint to any appropriate authority. Punjab submitted that terrorists had made an attempt to kill the then SSP, Saini was the then SSP.
Rohatgi: How can the plea on a same subject matter be entertained after its disposal? Especiallt after a 10 years delay from the SC decision.
Rohatgi: It has been 29 years since Multani escaped. His son has now filed an FIR now regarding his father's disappearance. This FIR is registered on Day 1. They are aware of the SC judgment.
Rohatgi: This FIR was regiatered in a mala fide fashion. Saini is retired now and I was also granted anticipatory bail by the district court. Now the complainant who is brother of the Police officer chalked all of this.
Rohatgi: Now the other 2 PO's who were accused with me got bail and turned approvers. Such an anticipatory bail should run till the end in view of Pradeep Ram verdict
Rohatgi: Now one district judge has recalled the order of the other district Judge. How can this be done? It was noted that bail was granted at a nascent stage. 30 years is nascent stage??
Rohatgi: The government is after me because I had filed two chargesheets which has the current chief minister of Punjab @capt_amarinder as the accused. This is why they are after me !
Senior Adv Siddharth Luthra: it is unfortunate that Mr Rohatgi is attributing motive to the judge. On the aspect of 2011 verdict of this court, let me make the submissions.
Luthra: There is a man called Multani who was picked up from his residence
Justice Bhushan: This case is of 1991. After 30 years what is the hurry to arrest him
Luthra: Post registration of FIR, statememt of approved has been recorded. Witnesses in the police station have for the first time stated that the picture of Multani released to have escaped from the prison was not Multani at all.
Luthra: P&H HC judge had noted that this man used to intimidate. Court had noted that a person had succumbed to his injury after he was imhumanly treated by the applicant.
Justice Bhushan: We will grant you time to file a reply
Luthra: After his retirement, the accused still has the audacity and power to have some files in his control. How can this be allowed?
Senior Adv KV Vishwanathan appears for the brother of Multani: My father went to HC as SC kept that option open. He was a notorious police officer. As a legal heir I am here today.
Vishwanathan: Murder offence was disclosed on August 18. This Section 302 was added. There is approver statement on record now.
Senior Adv Vishwanatha reads the Sushila Aggrawal case. If anticipatory bail is rejected then arrest can be made
Supreme Court orders no arrest till state replies. Notice issued. Returnable after 2 weeks.
Order modified: reply in 3 weeks. Rejoinder thereafter in one week.
Should former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain granted interim bail in a case related to Delhi riots so that he may campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly polls as an All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) candidate?
#SupremeCourt to hear @AamAadmiParty @aimim_national
The case comes to a three-judge bench after Justice Pankaj Mithal ruled that bail should be denied and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated that bail should be granted #TahirHussain #DelhiElection2025
Hearing to commence at 10:30 am #SupremeCourtofIndia
Supreme Court hears the case where village residents oppose the burial of a Christian man in the graveyard of their village in Chhattisgarh’s Bastar
Son of deceased Ramesh Baghel, a farmer from a Scheduled Caste (SC) community, who has kept the body in a mortuary for 12 days now is before supreme court
Justice BV Nagarathna: Why cannot a person before buried where they wanted to. Body is in mortuary? We are sorry to say that A person has to come to supreme court for the burial of his father. The HC, panchayat etc are not able to solve the problem. The HC says there will be law and order problem.. we are pained at this.
SG Tushar Mehta: if the case is to be decided only on emotions then I have nothing to say, else let it be argued
Sr Adv Colin Gonsalves: see the real reason, burial not being allowed because the person had converted.
SG: Intention may be to make this a precedent for rest of country. There is burial ground for the tribals who are not Christians. Though they are not christians they bury their dead. When christians die, just 20 km away there is a christian burial ground and they take the dead their and bury them. This ground is a Hindu tribal burial ground. Thus rather than not being vehement that I will not go 20 kms away.. then there are laws..
Justice Nagarathna: but what about burying in own land?
SG: once you bury or cremate someone in a private land the character of land changes it becomes a sacred place and it also has health issues. That is not permitted.. cremation etc is not allowed in private lands
Justice Nagarathna: no no nothing remains after cremation...
SG: it is not about one person it is the beginning of something else.
#SupremeCourt hears plea seeking quashing of the entire process of designation of 70 lawyers as senior advocates undertaken by the Delhi High Court
Adv Mathew Nedumpara makes submissions
Justice BR Gavai: How many judges can you name whose offsprings have been made seniors ?
Nedumpara: I have given a chart..
Justice Gavai: we will grant you liberty to amend the plea and if it is not amended then we will take steps accordingly. Tell us who is the signatory to the profession.
#Madrashighcourt will continue hearing today, the batch of petitions on the sexual assault of a student inside the Anna University campus in Chennai.
The vacation bench of
Justices SM Subramaniam and V Lakshminarayan assembles
Advocate General PS Raman: From what we have understood, some things have particularly affected the collective consciousness of this Court- The leaked details in the FIR and the Commissioner's statements in the press conference
Supreme Court to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's order which set aside the appointments in over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools #SupremeCourt @MamataOfficial
Sr Adv Vibha Datta Makhija: we would need two days.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna: Yes let us start. No piecemeal arguments.
State: Let the state start.
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi begins for state of West Bengal
Supreme Court hears appeal challenging the Madras High Court's decision to allow Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna to receive the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award.
ASG Venkataraman: Award was
conferred and it was greatly publicised. He is a person who made misogynistic comment against her
#SupremeCourt
ASG: the single judge order is in effect. The music academy could not have given the award yersterday. Can an injunction be breached and a public act be committee? Court is not powerless.
ASG: the court can stay this award or till suit is pending the fourth respondent cannot use the name of the award at all
Sr Adv Gopal Sankarnarayanan: Fourth respondent is not represented here as of now.