English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Kathua child gangrape and murder: SC seeks J&K’s reply on plea to transfer case to Chandigarh

Published

on

Kathua child gangrape and murder: SC seeks J&K's reply on plea to transfer case to Chandigarh

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud on Monday, April 16, asked Jammu and Kashmir government’s reply on plea for transferring trial in Kathua gangrape case to Chandigarh and directed the state government to provide security to the victim family’s lawyers Deepika Rajawat and Talib Hussain.

Hearing the appeal from the 8-year-old Kathua rape-murder victim’s father who had asked for the trial to be shifted out of J&K, the SC decided to take it up and listed the case on April 27 while making it clear that this will not be treated as a PIL.

Also, it said, “As an interim measure, it is directed that the Jammu and Kashmir Police to beef up the security and provide adequate security personnel to the family, Deepika Singh Rajawat and family friend Talid Hussain.”

The apex court also asked the state police to provide security at the observation home where delinquent juvenile is kept in connection with raping and killing the eight-year-old girl.

As the trial in the case started in Kathua on Monday, the eight accused pleaded not guilty and asked the judge for a narco analysis test, said media reports.  Seven of the eight accused were produced before District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Gupta, who asked the state Crime Branch to give them copies of the chargesheet and fixed April 28 as the next date of hearing.

The seven accused were shifted back to the jail under heavy security immediately after the brief hearing in the sessions court.

In SC, during the hearing, the victim’s father expressed satisfaction over the probe conducted by the state police so far and opposed the plea for a CBI probe as sought by others. Senior advocate Indira Jaising made it clear the victim’s father was seeking transfer of the trial of the case and not the investigation.

She said that the grievance is not the investigation and that she is not asking for any closure in this matter. The issues are grave and that the police couldn’t file the chargesheet for several hours. The lady police officer had to face a lot of trouble while filing the chargesheet.

She said that the atmosphere in that place (J&K court) is such that the “fair trial will become impossible. The petition pertains to the transfer of the case from Jammu and Kashmir.”

She pointed out that there have been direct attacks on the counsel for the 8-year-old’s father. She said that even the investigating officer was told to give up on this case.

She also sought interim protection for the family of the child and the counsel.

The CJI said: “Basically the case pertains to victim protection?” To this Jaising agreed, India Legal reported.

The CJI asked: “Suppose, if we transfer the case, will the investigation continue?”

Jaising said various cases have come up wherein the entire investigation is sought to be transferred to the CBI. However, we only demand for the transfer of the trials. The CBI comes in for the investigation only when there is a loophole in the case. The police has a done a god job.

The court also rejected a petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor seeking a CBI probe in the case .

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition has been filed by the adoptive father. This Jaising objected to, saying that the petition has been filed by the biological father of the child. The letter from the father was submitted before the CJI bench.

A team of five policemen is already with the family of the victim, submits the counsel for the respondents.

Listing the matter for April 27, the bench said that no multiple counsels will be allowed to argue. The CJI made it clear that this matter will pertain only to victim’s family. It’s not a PIL.

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com