2 escape from police station in Moga district by breaking roof
After their arrest under a special campaign against drugs, both were produced in court on Saturday. The court sent them into two-day police remand, and they were taken to Kot Ise Khan police station. It was learnt that both escaped from custody while those on security duty were unaware.
Upon learning about the incident, the police sprang into action, and teams were sent in different directions to search for the escapees. Family members of both individuals were questioned. According to information, Baljit Singh faces five cases under the NDPS Act, while Kuldeep faces one case.
Dharamkot DSP Ramandeep Singh said various teams had been formed to search for those who escaped from custody. TNN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trial against Sheikh Hasina part of a political conflict: Lawyer
Sheikh Hasina (File photo) Report by Ahsan Tasnim DHAKA: The charge of "crimes against humanity" is inapplicable to former Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina as the cases she is being tried for are part of a political conflict and not a war, her state-appointed lawyer argued on Monday in the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), which has set July 10 for framing charges against her and two of her close aides. Stating that according to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, only acts committed during war can be prosecuted as "crimes against humanity", Hasina's counsel Amir Hossain sought exemption for the Awami League politician, who is being tried in absentia. Hossain is also representing former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former inspector general of police Chowdhury Abdullah al Mamun in the case. "The events stemmed from political change, violence and revenge," Hossain told the ICT, which was formed after the 1971 war to try those accused of war crimes. "Since no war occurred, the charges based on war crimes and crimes against humanity are inapplicable," he said. Rejecting the arguments, chief prosecutor Tajul Islam said allegations' merits will be assessed during formal trial once ICT decides on framing charges. "I sought discharge from all allegations... as they appear politically motivated," Hossain told reporters, adding he has not been able to contact Hasina directly.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Four interstate bag thieves held for thefts at New Delhi railway station
Delhi Police's railways unit on Sunday arrested four members of an interstate gang of bag thieves, who primarily operated across railway stations in north India, and recovered 12 stolen bags, officers said on Monday, adding that all four are residents of different parts of Bihar. Police analysed CCTV footage and traced the suspects to a hotel in Paharganj. (Representative photo) The action came after the theft of five bags from the A1 coach of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra SF Express at the New Delhi Railway Station on July 3. Police analysed CCTV footage and traced the suspects to a hotel in Paharganj. Police said they arrested three members from the hotel and a fourth one from the Anand Vihar Railway Station. 'A fourth accused was arrested later from Anand Vihar Railway Station. He had operated across Bihar, Rajasthan, and Delhi, and is involved in multiple serious offences, including under the NDPS Act and Arms Acts in Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh,' deputy commissioner of police (railways) KPS Malhotra said. The accused were identified as Amit Kumar, 37, from Vaishali, Karan Kumar, 27, from Begusarai, Gaurav Pathak, 33, from Begusarai, and Punit Mahto, 38, from Begusarai. They are repeat offenders, with involvement in theft, arms possession and narcotic smuggling, police said. Investigators said the gang targeted blue and black bags, as they were harder to identify in CCTV footage and were less likely to draw suspicion. They posed as cloth traders, frequently transporting multiple bags to and from their hotel to mask thefts. Stolen items were hidden in safe houses near the Badarpur-Faridabad border, from where they were sold in grey markets. 'To avoid detection, they frequently changed phones, SIM cards, and used aliases during hotel stays. This clever deception helped them blend into the crowd and avoid raising suspicion, while successfully executing theft after theft. Recovered items include three trolley bags, four pitthu bags, five handbags, ₹47,000 in cash, and two mobile phones. Two of the trolley bags were matched to the reported theft,' the DCP said.
