The Maharashtra government today (October 3, 2018) moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order allowing
Gautam Navlakha, one of the five activists arrested in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima case, to be freed from house arrest.
The Delhi High Court on October 1, 2018, had set aside the transit remand order against Navlakha and put an end to his house arrest. In a Special Leave Petition (SLP), the State of Maharashtra has questioned the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition filed by Navlakha before the High Court, in light of two Supreme Court decisions in
State of Maharashtra v. Tanseem Rizwan Siddique and
Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneil Jail.
Further, the State Government has also contended that the Delhi High Court, while setting aside the transit remand order, did not apply
Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 correctly. As per the SLP filed by the State, “
Section 167 (1) of the code of criminal procedure makes it clear that in case an accused is to be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, then it is incumbent upon the police to produce the case diary. In case the police applies for transit remand before a Magistrate having no jurisdiction, then it is not necessary for the police to produce the case diary. In the case in hand, the Police arrested 5 persons from different places in the country. It was, therefore, not expected and not possible to produce the case diary before the concerned Courts.” The fact that the High Court observed that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the transit remand order without application of mind is also assailed by the State of Maharashtra.
“It needs to be seen that, while passing the order of transit remand the Magistrate had gone through the application filed by the Police and he had heard the concerned Police officer. It is not possible/ pragmatic to mention minute details while passing the order of remand. The Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has also mentioned about his thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the concerned police officer.” The State government prayed that the Delhi High Court order should be set aside, least the State suffer “irreparable loss”. It is also prayed that Navlakha be kept under house arrest keeping in line with the Supreme Court order passed last week extending the house arrest for four more weeks. Following his arrest on August 28, 2018, Gautam Navlakha had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the transit remand order granted to the Maharashtra Police. Observing that it was not possible to make out a case from the documents placed before it, the Bench of
JusticesS Muralidhar and
Vinod Goel posted the case for the next day, directing that Navlakha be placed under house arrest. The next day, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Navlakha and four other arrestees – Sudha Bharadwaj, Vernon Gonsalves, Varavara Rao and Arun Ferreira. The petition called for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the arrests. On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court Bench of then
Chief JusticeDipak Misra, and
JusticesAM Khanwilkar and
DY Chandrachud refused the prayer for constitution of a SIT and directed that the house arrest of the activists continue for another four weeks.
Delhi High Court grants permission for up to 50 people to perform Namaz at the Nizamuddin Markaz Masjid during Ramadan
Judiciary
Apr 19, 2021
Shreyas Nair
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
8 Shares
The Delhi High Court today allowed up to 50 people to offer namaz five times a day in Bangley Wali Masjid of Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi, which has been closed since (March 23, 2020) last year due to several FIRs against a Tablighi Jamat congregation amid the Covid-19 pandemic due to the lack of any affidavit clarifying the Centre's and Delhi Police's positions on the issue as ordered by the court earlier.On a case brought by the Delhi Waqf Board requesting permission to hold prayers during...
Law Firm’s Plea for Termination of Senior Associate Dismissed by Delhi HC with Rs. 35,000 in costs
Legal Insiders
Apr 16, 2021
Tanya Sehrawat
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
32 Shares
A Law firm had filed a plea in the Delhi High Court against its Senior Associate who wanted to resign. Instead of accepting her resignation, the firm terminated her services instead. The Court dismissed the same and imposed the penalty of Rs 35,000. A single-judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla passed the order. The order ofAdditional Senior Civil Judge was challenged by the firm, Banana IP Counsels LLP, in which its application was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil...
416 Views
![Nizamuddin Markaz Can be Opened for Ramadan Subject to COVID19 Protocols, Center to Delhi High Court [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/04/lj_3728_delhi.jpg)
Facebook Comments