#regularbail
Text
Hijaab Row
India is known in the world as a Secular Country but see day by day the Secular fabric is tearing off. You belong to a particular faith so you are free to profess your religion, practices and faith but you can't compel people belonging to other faith to profess your religious practices. This is what done in the present case which recently came before Hon'ble Jabalpur High Court where in the Ganga Jamuna Higher Secondary School Urdu is being taught as compulsory subject and students are compelled to recite prayers belonging to muslim faith in school.
On the other hand students belonging to Hindu or Jain Sect are restrained to wear Kalawa or to put Tilak on their forehead but are forced to wear Hijaab and salwar kurti.
Background
This is a case of #HijabRow where #Non-Muslim students studying in Ganga Jamuna Higher Secondary School, Futera Ward, Damoh, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh were #forced to wear salwar kurti, head scarf (#Hijaab) and dupatta (#scarf) right from Nursery to Class XII and forcefully #restrained from putting #tilak on the forehead or# tying sacred thread (#kalawa) on their wrist and if #someone #wears the sacred thread (kalawa) or put tilak, she is being #forcibly #prevented, by the teachers.
Fact
A #complaint in this regard was received. Matter was inquired & Investigation was conducted & head Scarves were seized. Statement of the girl students were recorded and #FIR was #KotwaliDamoh of Damoh District for the offences punishable under Sections 295A, 506 and 120B of the IPC, Section 75 and 87 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3/5(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
FIR was registered against the #Principal Asfa Sheikh, #teacher Anas Athar and Peon Rustom Ali and management of the school for commission of the aforesaid offences. They were #arrested and are in detention since 11.06.2023.
Submission of the Counsel of the Applicant
1. It was contended by the Counsel of the detenues that they are innocent and are falsely implicated.
2. The counsel also submitted a copy of the resolution accordingly it is the #SchoolManagement and #Director of the #School Mohd, Idris who had #prescribed #dresscode for all girl students and made it compulsory to wear scarf.
3. The detenues were #acting as per the #instructions of the #SchoolManagement. The counsel prayed for the release as in the matter after investigation, charge sheet was submitted.
Submission of the Counsel of the State
1. The counsel of the #State #opposed the #bail application as the statements of the girl students demonstrated that they were compelled to wear head scarf (Hijaab).
2. whereas minority institutions cannot compel the students belonging to other religion to wear head scarf (Hijaab)
3. and it also cannot prevent students of other religion from wearing sacred thread (kalawa) and putting tilak on the forehead.
4. It also cannot compel them to read Urdu language necessarily and to recite the prayers belonging to Islam faith.
Observation of the Court
1. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicants who are principal, teachers and peon.
2. The main allegations are against management of the school.
3. Trial of the case will take considerable time.
4. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a case in which applicants may be released on bail.
Order
Bail application is allowed subject to the conditions:
1. Applicants shall not repeat commission of offence.
2. They shall not prevent students of other religion from wearing the essentials of their own religion.
3. They shall not compel the students of other religion to read/study any material or language which has not been prescribed or approved by the Madhya Pradesh Education Board.
4. They shall not provide any religious education or material belonging to Islam faith to the students of other religion and shall impart only modern education as contained in Section 53(1)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
5. Girl students of other religion i.e. Hindu and Jain etc. shall not be compelled to wear head scarf anywhere in the school premises or in the class rooms.
6. Further applicants - Asfa Sheikh, Anas Athar and Rustom Ali be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond incorporating the aforesaid conditions, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall appear before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial.
7. The order is effective till the end of the trial and in case of breach of any of the conditions the order shall become ineffective.
Seema Bhatnagar
#kalawa#tilak#hijaabrow#scarf#salwarkurti#gangajamunahighersecondaryschool#schoolmanagement#damohdistrict#jabalpurhighcourt#complaint#fir#investigation#chargesheet#regularbail#minorityinstitution#solventsurety#personalbond#juvenilejusticeact2015#moderneducation#secularism
1 note
·
View note
Text
How to file a Regular Bail Application?
0 notes
Link
0 notes
Text
Cyber Crime during online recruitment examination
Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Anticipatory bail Petition was dismissed on 21.07.2023
FIR u/s 420, 465, 438, 471, 120-B, 409 IPC & Sec. 66-D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008
Case of the Petitioner
Apprehending arrest petitioner Gurmeet Singh moved anticipatory bail application as the petitioner was granted interim bail on 10.04.2023. Allegations levelled against the petitioner is that he found out candidates who could solve the online question-paper of the examination for the recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors in the State of Punjab, and was also running the center from where the examinations center was hacked.
Contention of the Petitioner’s Counsel
He is seeking bail on the ground that the evidence collected against him relates to the disclosure statement of accused Ankit, who was mentioned as accused in the disclosure statement of Laveneesh Gupta, and therefore this evidence is inadmissible.
Contention of the State’s Counsel
Anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner be not allowed as they want the custodial investigation to know the role of other people involved in the recruitment scams, including the beneficiaries, as this scam has already derailed the recruitment process for Sub Inspectors.
Background
1. The SHO, Police Station Anaaj Mandi, Patiala, received secret information on 16.09.2021 that online examinations
for recruitment of various departments were conducted at the center at Infra IT Solutions, Zila Parishad Complex, Patiala, and some hackers have hacked the computers.
2. The informant further informed that, one candidate Gurpreet Singh had secured the highest marks, and he had given his examination from the center of Infra IT Solutions, and Gurpreet Singh had not secured marks because of merits but because a gang of cyber criminals had hacked computer centers and someone else had remotely solved his question paper. He secured the highest marks by paying massive amounts of money to the cyber-thugs
3. Based on this information, the police registered an FIR during the investigation, candidate Gurpreet Singh was arrested and during investigation several other people involved in the crime were also arrested.
4. Ankit, one of the arrested accused informed the investigator the involvement Gurmeet Singh, the present petitioner. He informed that the center was initially run by Jasvir Sigh who had left sometime back thereafter it was run by Gurmeet Singh who used to make entries of the candidates for examination.
5. The High Court on 06.07.2023 had directed the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police to show the evidence collected against the present petitioner. Dy S P submitted evidence collected by way of Affidavit. Affidavit corroborated the statement of the other accused Ankit.
Observation of the Court
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused. A perusal of the order reveals that the co-accused were granted regular bail, and one ground for their bail was prolonged custody. On the contrary, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail; as such, he is not entitled to bail on parity.
2. This Court considered the evidence collected after disclosure statements of co accused which point out three relevant facts: -
(i)The petitioner had worked with the said center.
(ii) After Jasvir Kumar left the center, the petitioner had worked there.
(iii) There are various communications between the petitioner and other accused which
the petitioner had failed to explain.
3. The allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are grave. There is sufficient evidence that the candidates who had appeared from the said center had got suspiciously more marks than their calibre.
4. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.
6. This court will fail in its duty if it closes this order at this point.
7. If this scam had not come to light, so many corrupt and unethical people would have got appointed to the sensitive post of Sub Inspector by giving money, and it can be well imagined what kind of officers they would have become and how much injustice such officers would have caused to the communities and the State.
8. A highly sensitive and essential recruitment in the police, because of hacking not only got impaired but also got derailed. It also exposed the vulnerability of the examination system and the usage of breach-able and unsafe software.
9. It is for the Executive to ensure that software used for such sensitive matters is fool-proof as well as secured and its code is written considering the present-day exponential technological advancements and to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence by hackers.
10. There can be no leniency while dealing with bail petitions of cyber-thugs in the matters of cyber-crime.
11. Cyber criminals must be dealt with stringently and custodial interrogation of these cyber thugs in these kinds of sensitive matters is required not only to unfold the involvement of other persons but also to find out the vulnerability in the systems to stop future breaches.
Decision
Anticipatory Bail Petition was dismissed and Interim bail order was also recalled.
Seema Bhatnagar
#cybercrime#onlinerecruitment#policesubinspector#hacking#cyberthug#remoteanswering#recruitmentprocessderailed#regularbail#anticipatorybail#seekingparity#custodialinvestigation#punjabandharyanahighcourtatchandigarh#offenceunderITAct
1 note
·
View note
Text
"Giving Regular Bail based on settlement in heinous offences is impermissible"
On Monday 28.08.23 I wrote an article that #Noncompoundable & #heinousoffences can’t be settled by way of #mediation #settlement.
Another such case came before #supremecourtofindia and this time it is an Criminal Appeal - "Bharwad Santoshbahi Sondabhai v. The State of Gujrat & Another" filed against the #Regularbail order granted by the Single Judge of the Gujrat High Court in very serious(heinous) offence u/s 302/114 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act & Section 135 of Gujrat Police Act.
The Respondent was charged with the aforesaid sections moved twice #regularbail before the #trialcourt but it was #rejected on both the occasions for the #reason respondent No.2-accused was charged for offence u/s 302 IPC(#murder) and that the #witnesses had #identified him during the #testidentification #parade.
Don't you think there is immense possibility of tempering of evidence by the accused who is identified by the witness?
#Aggrieved with the #dismissal of his #bailapplication the respondent No.2accused moved bail application before the #GujratHighCourt on the basis of #settlement arrived between the #originalcomplainant(son of the deceased) and him.
Gujrat High Court granted bail observing #Investigation is #completed. #Chargesheet is submitted. #No #criminalantecedent against the respondent. Additional Public Prosecutor (#APP) failed to bring any #additionalcircumstances against the accused. Incident too place due to scuffle amongst friends present at the farm of the deceased Pravinbhai and in heat of argument respondent No.1 took out his revolver and fired. (whereas the Respondent No.2 exhorted Respondent No.1)
In such offences there is always the #apprehension of #tampering of the #evidence if the #accused #remainsonbail.
#ApexCourt was #shocked #how can in the offence of murder #regularbail is #granted to the Respondent No.2 #onthebasis #ofsettlement by the #GujratHighCourt. Moreso, it was a fit case where the #State #ought to have #brought this #fact in the #knowledge of the #ApexCourt but #surprisingly this was #notdonebythe #State.
After Apex court's repeated directions State filed affidavit stating #3FIR already #pending #against the #RespondentNo.2 the accused and out of the 3 in one FIR he was arrested on 22.08.2022 while was enlarged on bail by the Gujrat High Court though released on bail the very next day.
Counsel of the respondent accused submitted that the FIR in which he was arrested was in the course of his employment as security officer and there was some dispute with his brother and the employer and he has no role in it. That FIR can't be taken as a ground for refusal of bail in the present case.
However, the Division Bench of #HonorableMadamJusticeHimaKohliJ & #HonorableMrJusticeRajeshBindalJ #Quashed & #setaside the #order dt.18.02.2022 of the Gujrat High Court granting bail to the Respondent no.2 & directed him to #surrender #before the #trialcourt #forthwith.
Seema Bhatnagar
1 note
·
View note
Last Seen Blogs
