High court refused bail to activists arrested for Koregaon Bhima violence

advtanmoy 15/10/2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Justice Sarang Kotwal of Bombay high court refused bail to activists Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferriera and Vernon Gonsalves, arrested on August 28, 2018 under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, after Elgar Parishad, held on December 31, 2017 for having Maoist connection

A single Bench of Justice S.V. Kotwal  today rejected the Bail petition moved by activists Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj and Vernon Gonsalves charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The trio was arrested on August 28, 2018 and lodged at Yerawada jail since then.

The accused were initially placed under house arrest in August last year by the Pune Police in Maharashtra and were later taken into custody on October 26, after a sessions court in Pune rejected their bail pleas.

On September 13, the High Court had refused to quash the FIR lodged against Navlakha in the 2017 Bhima-Koregaon violence and for having alleged Maoist links, while noting the facts that there was prima facie evidence in the case. The HC observed, “Considering the magnitude of the case, we feel a thorough investigation is required”.

October 15 2019

Next Post

Maharastra BJP Election manifesto 2019 asking government to confer Bharat Ratna to Savarkar

Tue Oct 15 , 2019
Maharashtra BJP Election manifesto 2019, released on October 15 said the party will ask the NDA government to confer Bharat Ratna award on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar The BJP Maharashtra election manifesto 2019 released today in Mumbay proposed the names of Mahatma Phule, Savitribai Phule and Veer Savarkar for the Bharat Ratna. The 44-page manifesto manifesto styled as Sankalp Patra has […]

You May Like

  • A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
  • A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]

Jurisprudence

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: