Bus services resume through Vadakadu post caste violence
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
'Bail rule, jail exception' principle forgotten in recent past, says CJI Gavai
CJI Gavai NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai lamented that in the recent past, the principle of "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception" has been forgotten. Though judicial pronouncements over the decades have integrated this norm, it has not been implemented in true spirit in recent years, he said. Delivering the Justice V R Krishna Iyer Memorial Law Lecture in Kochi on Sunday, the CJI said he tried to reestablish the principle while granting bail in various cases, paving the way for high courts and lower courts to follow suit. "I am happy to state that I had the opportunity in the last year, 2024, to reiterate this legal principle in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha, Manish Sisodia, and Kavita vs ED," Justice Gavai said. Justice Iyer's contribution was immense in protecting the rights of marginalised communities, he said. The SC in recent years passed a series of orders to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners and held that delay in trial and long incarceration were grounds to grant bail even in serious offences under the PMLA and the UAPA, A, despite stringent bail conditions under the special laws. It opened the gate for bail to accused in money launder- ing and unlawful activities cases. The CJI also recalled Justice Iyer's strong opposition to undertrials being kept in jail for long periods without trial. In an important ruling in Aug last year, SC had held that the conventional idea of 'bail is the rule, jail is an exception' should be applicable not only to IPC offences but also to other offences for which special statutes have been enacted, such as UAPA, if the conditions prescribed under that law are fulfilled. SC in its various orders had appealed to HCs and lower courts to be liberal in granting bail and asked them not to hesitate in granting the relief in serious offences also if a case is made out for bail.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
HC stays attempt to murder trial in SDM slapping case
1 2 Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court Monday granted relief to Naresh Meena, an unsuccessful candidate involved in the controversial SDM slapping incident during the Deoli-Uniara assembly bypoll last year. Justice Uma Shankar Vyas issued an interim stay on the attempt to murder trial against Meena, which was being heard at the SC/ST court in Tonk district. The case stems from a Nov 13, 2024, incident where Meena was caught on video slapping SDM (Malpura) Amit Chaudhary during the assembly bypolls at Samravata village. Meena was arrested the following day. Challenging the charges under Section 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Meena's counsel, Fateh Ram Meena, argued the available evidence, including official election videography and other footage, clearly showed it was a case of assault rather than attempted murder. "All documents, evidence and witnesses confirm it was merely a slapping incident. The attempt to murder charge is excessive," the counsel stated. While Meena received bail in the slapping case in May from the bench of Justice Anil Upman, he remains in jail due to his alleged involvement in a separate Samravata village violence case.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC unhappy over state's delay in filing appeals
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has raised "serious concerns" over repeated instances of delay by the state in filing appeals and said a liberal approach can't be a shield for "systemic apathy" or "bureaucratic inefficiency". Delhi HC unhappy over state's delay in filing appeals Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 4 warned against any prejudice to the administration of criminal justice by avoidable procedural lapses or lack of diligence on the part of those entrusted with ensuring timely legal action. "Victims, particularly those belonging to marginalised or economically weaker sections of society, often lack the means or resources to pursue independent legal remedies and instead rely on the State machinery to seek justice on their behalf. "When the State delays in challenging orders which may adversely affect the victim's case, such as an order of discharge, it is not merely a procedural lapse but a setback to the victim's pursuit of justice," the order said. Such delays jeopardise victims' right to a fair and complete adjudication of allegations, eroding their faith in the system meant to protect them, it added. The high court hearing the state's plea for condonation of 325 days' delay in filing a revision petition against a trial court order. The trial court discharged a man in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act. The prosecutor argued that due to administrative formalities and movement of the file from one table to another, the prescribed limitation period expired, resulting in a delay in filing the revision petition. He claimed the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. The accused, however, opposed the state's contention. While the court condoned the delay, it cautioned the state against the "repeated instances" of delay in filing appeals or revision petitions which were "a matter of serious concern". The order continued, "While courts may, in appropriate cases, adopt a liberal approach while condoning such delays, this cannot become a shield for systemic apathy or bureaucratic inefficiency." A copy of the order was directed to be shared with the director of prosecution of Delhi government who would examine the circumstances surrounding such delays and adopt appropriate steps mitigate future instances. The step is expected to ensure every stakeholder – from the investigating officer to the prosecutor to the administrative departments – discharges their role with a sense of responsibility and within a clearly defined time frame. "The state shall form an appropriate policy in this regard, and the same shall be placed before this court within a period of one month from date of the receipt of this order," it said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
