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.
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.