Latest news with #PatnaHighCourt
News18
8 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
15-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
After Rs 1,100 Pension And 35% Job Quota For Women, What Is In Nitish's 'Election Box'?
The Bihar cabinet, led by CM Nitish Kumar, will discuss welfare initiatives with election implications, including pension hikes, reservation strategies and women's welfare All eyes are on the Bihar cabinet meeting scheduled for 10:30 am on Tuesday, July 15, where Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is expected to clear a slate of welfare initiatives with potential election overtones. With the 2025 assembly elections drawing closer and opposition pressure mounting, this cabinet session could shape the government's final leg before the polls. Sources in the state secretariat say the agenda includes expanding flagship schemes, sharpening the government's stance on the reservation issue, and rolling out fresh benefits for the youth, elderly, women, and farmers. Pension Push Likely to Get Louder The old age pension scheme, recently revised to provide Rs 1,100 per month to over 1.09 crore elderly, widows, and disabled citizens, is likely to feature prominently. Though the increase (up from Rs 400) came into effect this July, the opposition, particularly the RJD, has slammed it as inadequate. Their demand is Rs 1,500 per month. With this criticism in play, the cabinet could either further hike the amount or expand the beneficiary pool. Government insiders hint that a recalibration of the scheme is on the table, both as a welfare move and a political counter. Reservation Strategy Under Review Reservation continues to be a politically charged issue in Bihar. The cabinet is expected to review the legal status of the 65% reservation bill, which was recently struck down by the Patna High Court. The state government has already moved the Supreme Court to challenge the verdict. Tuesday's meeting may formalise Bihar's legal roadmap ahead. Alongside, the government may also push forward the implementation of 35% reservation in state jobs for women domiciled in Bihar, a measure Nitish Kumar has publicly backed, and one likely to resonate with the nearly 3.6 crore women voters in the state. What's in the 'Election Box'? With elections less than a year away, the Nitish government is expected to announce a range of voter-friendly initiatives. Likely areas of focus: 1. Youth and Jobs The Bihar Youth Commission, already cleared by the cabinet, could get fresh funds or programmes. Under the 'Mukhyamantri Pratigya Yojana', proposals may include monthly assistance of Rs 4,000 for Class 12 students and Rs 6,000 for graduates enrolled in skill development or internship programs. 2. Farmers Agricultural support schemes could get a boost. In recent meetings, the cabinet had approved diesel subsidies and roadmap funds. Tuesday's discussion may include incentives for new crop cultivation, irrigation systems, or agri-tech support. 3. Women's Welfare Expect expansion of schemes like the Pink Bus Service, Didi Ki Rasoi, and Mahila Haat. These initiatives are part of the state's broader push for women's empowerment, especially as female voter turnout has been rising. 4. Education and Health The government may clear fresh teacher and headmaster appointments. In healthcare, expect budgetary approvals for new district-level facilities and mobile medical units, as part of Nitish Kumar's social development pitch. Why This Meeting Matters Today's cabinet session is more than routine governance; it's a crucial pre-election staging ground. With opposition parties sharpening their attacks and BJP watching closely as a key NDA ally, Nitish Kumar is walking a tightrope. The focus now is on delivering visible benefits and reinforcing the state's welfare image. view comments First Published: July 15, 2025, 11:05 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
14-07-2025
- News18
Woman In Levirate Marriage, Where Widow Marries Husband's Brother, Entitled To Maintenance: HC
'Where a long-standing and socially accepted custom exists allowing such marriage, it may be treated as valid in law,' the court held In a significant ruling promoting social justice and gender equality, the Patna High Court (HC) has allowed a woman's plea for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even though her marriage with the respondent was disputed and allegedly fell within prohibited degrees under Hindu Law. The court, in Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh & Ors., set aside a June 2024 order of the Family Court, Kaimur, which had dismissed the woman's maintenance application on the grounds that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not mandatory if the woman has been socially accepted as the wife and has lived in a domestic relationship, particularly where children have been born out of that union. The petitioner, Sangeeta Devi, claimed she married Pawan Kumar Singh in 2010 in accordance with the prevailing custom of her community, where a widow is permitted to marry her deceased husband's younger brother, a practice known as levirate marriage or kareva. The couple had two sons during their cohabitation. She alleged that Singh, a police constable, abandoned her and the children without financial support for the past six years. The respondent denied the marriage, stating that the petitioner was his brother's widow and therefore their union was void under Hindu Marriage Act provisions prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of relationship. However, the High Court emphasized that Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act allows such marriages if they are sanctioned by custom. 'Where a long-standing and socially accepted custom exists allowing such marriage, it may be treated as valid in law," the court held. Justice Chaudhuri noted that the woman's plea of custom had been raised and needed proper judicial examination, not outright rejection. The court also relied on the past Supreme Court decisions, including Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, to hold that cohabitation and acknowledgment of children give rise to a strong presumption of marriage. 'Disregarding such a union would not only be legally unsound but would also send a regressive message to society, undermining the dignity of women and the security of children born from such relationships," the court observed. Calling the Family Court's rejection 'legally unsustainable", the High Court remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing, directing that both parties be allowed to lead evidence, especially on the question of custom and cohabitation. The ruling reaffirms the principle that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare legislation meant to prevent destitution, and its benefits should not be denied on rigid technicalities, particularly where the woman has lived in a domestic relationship, raised children, and has been abandoned. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
09-07-2025
- News18
‘Committing Adultery Once Or Twice Not Same As Living In Adultery': HC Grants Maintenance To Woman
Last Updated: 'A mere lapse, one or two, can't be said to be living in adultery. If it is followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be 'living in adultery'," the HC said Drawing a sharp distinction between 'committing adultery" and 'living in adultery", the Patna High Court (HC) observed that 'a mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery". The Patna High Court on July 7 granted maintenance to a woman previously denied support by a family court on the grounds of alleged adultery. The bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar drew a crucial distinction between 'committing adultery" and 'living in adultery". The HC underscored that a wife is disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only if she is proven to be 'living in adultery", a continuous course of conduct, not a one-time lapse. 'A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be 'living in adultery'," the HC observed. Bulbul Khatoon and her minor son Danish Raza, filed a maintenance petition in 2017 against Md. Shamshad, her husband and father of the child. While the family court had directed Shamshad to pay Rs. 4,000 per month to his son, it rejected Bulbul's claim, citing alleged adultery and a divorce reportedly executed through a local religious institution, namely Darul Kaja Edara Sharia, Koshi Commissionery, Purnia. The high court, however, found that the talaqnama produced by Shamshad lacked Bulbul's signature and did not satisfy the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which held triple talaq to be void and unconstitutional. 'Hence, Bulbul Khatoon cannot be held to be a divorced wife. There is also no pleading or evidence on record to prove that Bulbul Khatoon has been divorced by Md. Shamshad by any other legal mode," court held. Justice Kumar further noted that allegations of Bulbul's illicit relationship with one Md. Tarikat had not been proved by her husband. None of the seven defense witnesses, including Shamshad, could provide conclusive proof of adultery. On the other hand, Bulbul had placed on record sufficient evidence that she had been living at her parental home along with her minor son. The high court also found that Bulbul had been forced out of her matrimonial home after failing to meet dowry demands, and had since been living at her parental home without means to support herself. A pending criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC further supported her version of events. Considering these findings, court ordered Md. Shamshad to pay Bulbul Khatoon Rs. 2,000 per month from October 30, 2017, the date on which the original maintenance application was filed. It also revised the maintenance for the minor son Danish Raza, making it effective from the same date rather than the family court's order date of April 4, 2020. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
20-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
‘Smiling Is No Crime': Patna HC Quashes Case Against Nitish Kumar Over National Anthem Conduct
Last Updated: The complaint, filed by one Vikash Paswan, accused CM Kumar of talking to a person next to him and performing a 'pranaam' with a smiling face during the National Anthem. The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for allegedly insulting the National Anthem during the inauguration of the World Cup Sepak Takra at Patliputra Stadium in March 2025. The complaint, filed by one Vikash Paswan, accused CM Kumar of talking to a person next to him and performing a 'pranaam' with a smiling face during the National Anthem, which the complainant claimed violated Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The matter snowballed after a magistrate in Begusarai took cognizance, issuing a notice against Kumar as a 'proposed accused.' However, the bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha termed the entire complaint and subsequent proceedings 'baseless" and politically motivated. Firstly, the high court noted that Section 223 of the BNSS provides that while taking cognizance of an offence, complainant shall be examined upon oath and the witnesses present, except in certain exceptional situations. However, in the present matter, the Magistrate proceeded to issue notice to the CM without examining the complainant on oath. It, therefore, held the findings of the Magistrate 'unfounded and misconceived". Court clarified that although the Magistrate had held that the CM's act was distinguished from his official duties, hence he was prima facie not treated as a public servant rendering Section 218 of the BNSS inapplicable, but it was a fact that Kumar was present at the inaugural function in the capacity of Chief Minister. 'If the petitioner was not the Chief Minister, he had no occasion to inaugurate the event and, therefore, his presence at the inaugural event, as aforesaid, cannot be distinguished by saying that his participation was not in capacity of a public servant as to import the protection of section 218 of the BNSS," court said. Secondly, court noted that the complainant himself had stated that the CM was standing and doing 'Pranaam" with a smiling face. 'This admitted conduct of the petitioner shows only high respect for the national anthem having a smiling face at the time of singing of the national anthem, merely folding hand in 'Pranaam Mudra' in standing position and 'smiling face' cannot be construed by any prudent imagination that it was the insult of the 'National Anthem'," court opined. Lastly, on the allegation that CM Kumar was disturbing the person who was standing next to him in the row, court said that this person could be the best witness, but the name of such a person was not disclosed in the complaint petition, which made the allegation completely 'baseless and frivolous, just to gain cheap popularity in politics by tarnishing the image of the petitioner". Conclusively, court held that the entire complaint, along with the notice issued by the Magistrate, was contrary to established principles of law, as legal provisions available under sections 223 & 226 of the BNSS had also been ignored. Therefore, it quashed the entire complaint with notice and the consequential proceedings.
