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.
Whether chargesheet filed without Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in case under NDPS Act, 1985 can be termed as 'incomplete report' under CrPC? #SupremeCourt to shortly hear the matter
A three-judge Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ujjal Bhuyan will also examine various related aspects that concern the fairness and efficacy of the trials under the NDPS Act
#SupremeCourt to shortly hear appeal by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against 2023 Delhi HC decision ruling that application for drawing sample of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance before Magistrate u/s 52A of NDPS Act should be made within 72 hours @narcoticsbureau
In May 2023, the High Court had observed that such an application cannot be moved at the “whims and fancies” of Narcotics Control Bureau, being the prosecuting agency.
When matter came before Supreme Court earlier, the Court had orally remarked that Section 52A is enabling not mandatory.
Supreme Court to shortly deliver judgment laying down pan-India guidelines on use of bulldozer by state governments as a punitive measure to demolish house or shop of a person immediately after he or she is named as accused of an offence
#SupremeCourt
Judgement to be delivered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan
#SupremeCourt #bulldozer
Supreme Court Bar Association holds farewell for CJI DY Chandrachud #SupremeCourtofIndia
Sr Adv Rachana Srivastava, VP SCBA: CJI Chandrachud was a part of 23 constitution benches. Your journey in the legal world has pushed boundaries. You leave behind a court which has hope for all of us. You had unwavering dedication to the rule of law.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal, President SCBA: when you have to journey the judge of any judge what is the benchmark. We can criticise a judge all we want. You have to judge the man in the backdrop of the times we live in. When we discuss him, his manner, his affability which is of one of the greatest judges of this country.
Ceremonial bench on the last working day of CJI DY Chandrachud
CJI Chandrachud along with CJI Designate Sanjiv Khanna, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
#SupremeCourt
Attorney General R Venkataramani: Recently in Brazil after the conference ended everyone started dancing. what if I ask everyone here to dance on your retirement and I am sure most will vote in favour of me.
SG Tushar Mehta: Complete impartiality in dispensation of justice. We were never hesitant in good or bad matters before you. For govt we won few we lost many but we knew that we did not get an opportunity to convince the court and put our point forward. My lord has always taken a stand as the karta of the family
DYC will really be missed.
#BREAKING Supreme Court to State of UP: How can you just enter someone's home and demolish it without following course of law or serving notice?
CJI DY Chandrachud: We are not inclined to accept the request of the State of UP to adjourn the proceedings since pleadings are completed and the court is required to evaluate the materials placed before to decide legality of action.
#SupremeCourtofIndia @myogioffice
CJI: The following position emerges from narration of facts: state of UP has not produced original width of state highway notified as national highway, no material was placed to show whether any inquiry was conducted to figure out encroachers, there is no material produced to indicate that land was acquired before demolition was carried out. The state has failed to disclose the precise extent of encroachments, the width of the existing road, the width of notified highway, extent of property of petitioner which feel within central line of highway and why the demolition was needed beyond the area of alleged encroachment. NHRC report shows demolition was far in excess than the area of alleged encroachment. #SupremeCourtofIndia
#BREAKING
CJI: The demolition was carried out without any notice or disclosure to the occupiers of the basis of the demarcation or the extent of demolition to be carried out. It is clear demolition was high handed and without the authority of law. The petitioner states the demolition was only because the petitioner had flagged irregularities in road construction in newspaper report. Such action by the state cannot be countenanced and when dealing with private property law has to be followed.