Supreme Court Orders Transfer Of Kidnapping Case Against Tamil Nadu Senior Cop
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing suspended ADGP HM Jayaram directed the Tamil Nadu government to transfer the investigation of the teenager's abduction case to CB-CID.
The Supreme Court while setting aside the arrest order of the Madras High Court also directed the Chief Justice of the high court to transfer the case to some other bench.
However, the suspension of the officer will continue as the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that his suspension did not come from the high court order, but from rules.
Senior lawyer Siddharth Dave appearing for Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that he was not suspended because of the orders of the high court, but under Rule 3 of the All India Service Rules, 1969.
This rule empowers a disciplinary authority to suspend a member of service in respect of whom or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial is pending.
The senior lawyer said that presently the investigation is underway and depending on the report of the investigating officer, a decision will be taken on the suspension order.
The Supreme Court, taking this submission on record, said the suspended ADGP would have options to appeal against the suspension.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the suspended Assistant Director General of Police HM Jayaram, challenging his arrest in a kidnapping case.
The Madras High Court ordered the arrest of Mr Jayaram and criticised Kilvaithinankuppam (SC) MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy for "misusing his political power" in connection with the kidnapping of a teenager.
The officer approached the Supreme Court saying his arrest order was passed when he was not even a party to the proceedings in the high court.
In the last hearing, the Supreme Court expressed shock over the high court order and sought the Tamil Nadu government's reply in withdrawal of suspension.
The matter pertains to a May 10 kidnapping of an 18-year-old man in Thiruvallur district. He was reportedly kidnapped by a group seeking information about his elder brother, who had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes.
The Madras High Court castigated the MLA and the senior police officer for using political muscle to block a lawful investigation.
The case has been filed by the mother of the kidnapped man against the group of men who allegedly entered their house in Kalambakkam, searching for her elder son.
They allegedly kidnapped the younger son when his elder brother was nowhere to be found. The kidnappers allegedly posed as police officers and later dropped the man near a hotel in a vehicle belonging to Mr Jayaram, the woman said in her complaint.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court jails retired official caught taking Rs 500 bribe 30 years ago
Bengaluru: Three decades after he was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs 500, a retired village accountant has been sent to jail, with the Supreme Court overturning his acquittal by the Karnataka high court. Nagesh Dondu Shivangekar, now in his 70s, was taken into custody and sent to Hindalga prison, Belagavi district, following the apex court's April 16 order, which reinstated the one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down by a trial court in 2006. The case dates back to Jan 1995, when one Laxman Katambale applied for amendment to mutation entries in Belagavi revenue records pertaining to agricultural land partitioned among him and his brothers. Laxman later approached Nagesh, the then village accountant at Kadoli, to check on the status of his application. Nagesh claimed he had not received any application and asked Laxman to submit a fresh one. On April 3, 1995, Laxman filed a new application, after which Nagesh demanded a bribe of Rs 2,000 to process it. Laxman initially paid Rs 1,500 in two installments and agreed to pay the remaining Rs 500 after the work was done. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pueblo Nuevo: Inicia hoy con Amazon CFD y construye un segundo ingreso. InvestIQ Registrarse Undo However, he later approached Lokayukta police and filed a complaint on April 7, 1995. Acting on the complaint, a trap was laid and Nagesh was caught red-handed while accepting the final Rs 500 instalment. On June 14, 2006, a trial court convicted Nagesh, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 500. However, the Karnataka high court overturned the conviction on March 9, 2012, calling the trial court's findings "highly perverse" and doubting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses on the question of demand and acceptance of the bribe. Lokayukta police challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court, which reviewed the evidence and found it reliable and corroborative of the prosecution's case. It ruled that the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt and held that the high court had erred in setting aside the trial court's judgment. With that, Nagesh's long reprieve came to an end — thirty years after the offence, he is now behind bars.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling
Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Iskcon flyover case: Tathya Patel denied bail once again
Ahmedabad: A sessions court once again rejected the regular bail application of 22-year-old Tathya Patel, who is accused of running his car into a crowd and killing nine persons on the Iskcon flyover in July 2023. In denying bail to Patel, principal district judge K M Sojitra discarded the argument that the trial in this case might take a long time. The court said that the accused himself is seeking adjournment during the trial for quite some time on the grounds that his revision application seeking discharge from section 304 of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was pending before the Gujarat high court. The court also took into consideration that Patel's pleas for regular bail were rejected twice by the trial court earlier, and that Patel has twice withdrawn his bail pleas from the Gujarat high court and once from the Supreme Court. Regarding the arguments for bail, the court stated, "The contentions raised in this application were already raised in the earlier application and the same were already dealt with. No material changed circumstances have tilted in favour of applicant – accused. " The court also considered gravity of the case in denying bail, and said, "Having regards to the seriousness of the incident in which nine people have lost their lives and 12 people are injured and bail plea of the applicant-accused is not considered by the higher courts, the case of applicant - accused cannot be considered for grant of bail."
