Latest news with #Aftab
India.com
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- India.com
Meet actor who is Karisma Kapoor's brother, both share same birthday, his debut film was superhit, then gave 40 flop films; his name is...
Relationships in the film industry are often as colourful as they are intriguing. The bond between Karisma Kapoor and Aftab Shivdasani is one such example. Karisma entered the Hindi film industry as a leading actress in the 1990s, while Aftab began his career as a child artist. What many people don't know is that their connection goes beyond the film world; they are also related by blood. Yes, you read it right! How are Karisma Kapoor and Aftab Shivdasani related? Interestingly, both of them share the same birthday: June 25. Karisma was born on June 25, 1974, in Mumbai. She is the daughter of actors Randhir Kapoor and Babita. Aftab was born on June 25, 1978, also in Mumbai. His father is Prem Shivdasani and his mother is Putli Shivdasani Irani. Karisma's mother, Babita, was Babita Shivdasani before her marriage. Aftab's father, Prem Shivdasani, was the nephew of Babita's father, Hari Shivdasani. By this relation, Babita is Aftab's aunt, making Aftab Karisma's maternal cousin. Karisma Kapoor's career growth Looking at their careers, Karisma Kapoor left her studies midway to pursue a career in Bollywood. She began her film journey at 16 with Prem Qaidi , which was released in 1991. In 1992, she starred alongside veteran actor Jackie Shroff in the film Police Officer . Films like Jigar and Anari helped her gain recognition as an actress. By 1994, her career began to gain momentum with hits such as Raja Babu, Khuddar, Andaz Apna Apna, and Suhaag. In the 1990s, Karisma Kapoor formed a successful on-screen pairing with Govinda in hit comedy films like Coolie No. 1, Saajan Chale Sasural , and Hero No. 1 . The 1996 film Raja Hindustani made her a superstar and earned her first Filmfare Award. She went on to receive a National Award for her performance in 1997's Dil To Pagal Hai. She continued to win acclaim with films like Biwi No. 1, Hum Saath-Saath Hain, Fiza, and Zubeidaa. After 2003, she took a step back from acting but made a comeback in 2012 with Dangerous Ishhq . She later entered the OTT space with the web series Mentalhood in 2020, followed by Murder Mubarak in 2024. Aftab Shivdasani's career growth Aftab Shivdasani began his career as a child artist. He appeared in a Farex Baby advertisement at just 14 months old and went on to feature in numerous TV commercials. He acted as a child artist in popular films like Mr. India, Shahenshah, and ChaalBaaz, all released in 1987. In 1999, Aftab made his debut as a lead actor in Ram Gopal Varma's film Mast, for which he received the Zee Cine Award for Best Debut Actor. In 2001, he won hearts with his negative role in Kasoor, earning a Filmfare nomination for Best Villain. He went on to showcase his acting skills in films like Love Ke Liye Kuch Bhi Karega, Pyaar Ishq Aur Mohabbat, and Kya Yehi Pyaar Hai . Hit films like Hungama (2003) and Masti (2004) made him a comedy star. Although some of his films flopped afterward, hits like the 2012 horror film 1920: The Evil Returns and the multi-starrer Grand Masti brought him back into the spotlight. In 2021, he appeared in the web series Special Ops 1.5 , where his performance was highly appreciated.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC awards ₹5L to Ghaziabad man held in ‘prolonged custody'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for nearly a month despite being granted bail, calling the episode a 'denial of constitutional liberty' and a 'travesty of justice'. The court also ordered a judicial enquiry into possible lapses by prison officials. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. (Shutterstock) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval of the continued detention of the petitioner, calling it a 'denial of constitutional liberty'. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such technicality,' said the bench. The court was hearing a petition filed by Aftab, who had been charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He had secured bail from the Supreme Court on April 29, followed by a release order from the trial court on May 27. However, he was not released, as the jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section – Section 5(1), in the trial court's release directive. On Tuesday, the court summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually and directed the Ghaziabad jail superintendent to be present in person. Representing the state, additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad informed the court that Aftab had finally been released at 8.42pm on Tuesday, after a corrected release order was issued mentioning Section 5(1) of the 2021 Act. The bench, however, was far from satisfied. 'The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,' the bench remarked in its order. 'Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin.' Concerned that the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse, the court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a 'vested interest' in keeping the petitioner in custody. While Parshad said that an internal enquiry had been initiated by the DIG Prisons, Meerut, the court insisted on a judicial probe. It requested the Allahabad high court to appoint the principal district and sessions judge (PDSJ), Ghaziabad, to investigate the circumstances that led to the prolonged detention. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. The enquiry will also identify any prison officials responsible for the lapse. Parshad argued that jail officials had merely followed precedent, citing an Allahabad high court ruling that required release orders to mention all applicable provisions. But the Supreme Court dismissed this claim after reviewing the HC order. 'Contrary to what the AAG contends, the high court's ruling clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case or sessions trial number, then no further detail is needed to release the prisoner,' it noted. 'For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days,' the bench noted. 'The only way to remedy the situation is to order an ad hoc compensation.' Accordingly, the court directed the state to pay Aftab ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation, adding that the final amount would be determined after the judicial enquiry report is submitted. DG (prisons), appearing virtually, was directed to issue a statewide instruction to all jails to interpret release orders substantively rather than fixating on minor technicalities. The bench also recorded the DG's assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify other cases where liberty may have been wrongfully denied. Aftab had married a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple as per Hindu rites. On a complaint lodged by the woman's aunt, he was arrested on January 10, 2024, and subsequently charge-sheeted for kidnapping and for religious conversion through fraud. Following the release order, Aftab's family had approached prison officials to secure his release, only to be informed that the jail register entries did not match the provisions cited in the Supreme Court's order or the trial court's release direction. This prompted the present application before the top court.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
SC pulls up UP jail dept for violating liberty of a person; orders to pay ' Rs 5 lakh to man detained for month despite bail
NEW DELHI: Lambasting the UP prisons department for illegally detaining a man for 28 days despite his release on bail, Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the state to pay an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh to him and ordered a judicial inquiry into lapses on the part of Ghaziabad jail officials. Taking a hyper-technical approach - the bail order mentioned Section 5 instead of Section 5(1) of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and the same typo was repeated in the additional sessions and district judge's release order of May 27 - jail authorities had refused to release Aftab, who had converted to Hinduism to marry a Hindu girl. With the director general (prisons) logged on virtually to the proceedings and jail superintendent Sitaram Sharma present in the courtroom, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh said, "The whole incident to say the least is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders in the process was aware as to what the offence was, what the crime number was and the sections under which the man was charged with and the punishment section. " Noting that Aftab was released on Tuesday only after the SC took umbrage to denial of liberty based on a hyper-technicality, the bench said, "Aftab was sent on a spin and notwithstanding the order of the SC of April 29 (order of a bench headed by the CJI), and the release order of May 27 (by additional sessions and district judge), which is clear to us as daylight, the applicant has been released only on June 24. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 경고: 이 게임 진짜 중독성 쩔어요. 지금 해봐! Hero Wars 플레이하기 Undo "Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person under the Constitution. It cannot be martyred on these useless technicalities. We only hope that no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of similar technicalities. The DG (prisons) has assured us that no one will suffer because of such technicality in future and that he will sensitise the entire jail staff." The bench noted that UP prisons had 90,000 inmates. The SC asked the Ghaziabad district judge to complete the inquiry into the episode by Aug 18 and told the DG (prisons) to understand and implement the need to respect court orders and sensitise jail staff about the importance of liberty to ensure such incidents are not repeated. The bench said if it found from the inquiry that jail officials were at fault for delay in Aftab's release despite valid bail orders, it would impose cost on individual officers. It asked the UP govt to pay the compensation of Rs 5 lakh by Friday. UP's advocate general Garima Prasad informed the court that jail authorities had moved the trial court on May 28 for correction in the released order to include Section 5(1) of the anti-conversion law, but the trial court did so only on June 24, following which Aftab was released on Tuesday evening. The SC asked the state not to look for typographical errors in matters relating to liberty and said, "Otherwise, we (judges) in the SC will be doing proof-reading while most of the country will be behind bars."
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Missing ‘sub-section' prompts U.P. to delay release of man who got bail, SC orders State to pay him ₹5 lakh compensation
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹5 lakh in interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for 28 days despite the Court's order granting him bail in an abduction and unlawful religious conversion case. The man, identified as Aftab, was granted bail by the apex court, followed by a release order by the trial court. However, State authorities delayed his release, citing that the court orders did not explicitly mention that he had been charged under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh termed the State's justification both 'preposterous' and 'unfortunate'. 'The whole episode is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders in the process was aware as to what the man's offence was, what the crime number of the case was, what the Section under which he was charged with and what was the punishing Section. Despite this, he was sent on a spin,' Justice Viswanathan observed. While Aftab was supposed to be released on May 27, he was finally freed only on the night of June 24. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to persons under the Constitution. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities. We only hope no other convicts or undertrials languishing in jails are victims of similar technicalities,' Justice Viswanathan said. Addressing Director General of Prisons P.C. Meena and the Superintendent of Ghaziabad Jail, where Aftab was lodged, Justice Viswanathan remarked, 'Is this what you tell your officers? To look for Sub-sections and to see whether they have been mentioned or not? What is going on in this State… a vast State with many jails… God knows how many people are languishing in your jails despite valid judicial orders for their release on bail.' Mr. Meena assured the Bench that he would personally sensitise prison officials on the matter. The Court observed that jail authorities must not 'nit-pick' valid judicial orders to delay the release of undertrials and convicts. 'As long as basic particulars are available [in bail and release orders of courts], and there is no dispute identifying the individual, nit-picking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping individuals behind bars would be a serious dereliction of duty to start with,' Justice Viswanathan said. 'The jail department must focus on the substance of the order and not look out for irrelevant and minute errors to use them as a pretext to deny liberty,' he added. The Bench directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ghaziabad to conduct an inquiry to determine whether the absence of the specific Sub-section was indeed the reason for the delay, or whether there was 'something sinister.' 'The enquiry would focus on the reason behind the delay in release [of Aftab]. Why was he detained beyond May 27? Is the missing Sub-section the real reason or was there something sinister? The judge must independently look into whether there was any gross negligence by prison authorities, and fix responsibility on the officer/officers in case of any negligence,' the court said. The enquiry report is to be submitted to the apex court. Meanwhile, the Bench directed the State to pay ₹5 lakh in 'ad hoc, provisional compensation' to Aftab and report compliance by July 27. 'The net result of this non-issue is that the applicant [Aftab] lost his liberty for at least 28 full days. The only way to remedy the situation is to order ad hoc monetary compensation which would be provisional in nature,' the Bench said. It added that final compensation would be determined based on the outcome of the District Judge's enquiry and that the Court would also consider recovering the amount or part thereof from the officers found responsible. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on August 18.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court slams Ghaziabad jail for not releasing man over typo in bail order
The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the superintendent of Ghaziabad jail for not releasing a man named Aftab, just because of a small typing mistake in the court's bail order. Aftab, a Muslim man, had converted to Hinduism at an Arya Samaj temple in Tis Hazari so that he could marry a Hindu girl. The couple got married following Hindu rituals. However, after they eloped, the girl's aunt filed a missing persons report. This led to Aftab being charged under the Uttar Pradesh law that bans illegal religious conversions. On April 29, the Supreme Court granted bail to Aftab. But the jail authorities refused to let him go, claiming there was a typographical error in the court's order. The top court expressed anger over this, saying that such small mistakes should not stop someone's release from jail. [With TOI inputs]
