Today(on 20th May), The Supreme Court rejected bail for ex-Samajwadi Party legislator Kamlesh Pathak under Uttar Pradesh’s Gangster Act due to his extensive criminal record. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish C Sharma emphasized his influence in the region and the severity of the charges. Pathak’s previous bail grants in murder cases did not apply to the Gangster Act charges.
Today (16th May): The Supreme Court postponed urban Naxal Jyoti Jagtap’s bail plea hearing in the Bhima Koregaon case to July, citing the summer recess. Initially set for May, the hearing was rescheduled for July 8. Jagtap remains in custody following the Bombay High Court’s previous denial of bail. The case involves alleged incitement to violence during the 2018 Bhima Koregaon event.
![[Breaking] Delhi Court Extends Manish Sisodia's Judicial Custody till May 30 in Excise policy Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image-167.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (15th May): Manish Sisodia, Aam Aadmi Party leader, faces extended judicial custody until May 30 in the Delhi excise policy case. The framing of charges against him has been adjourned based on Delhi High Court’s directions. He was arrested last year by the ED in connection with alleged money laundering and corruption linked to the liquor policy.
Today, 13th May, Umar Khalid’s bail plea, filed under UAPA in the Delhi riots case, is pending a decision from the Karkardooma Court. The court reserved the order after arguments from both sides. Khalid’s defense emphasizes lack of substantial evidence and bias in media trial. The Delhi Police, opposing the bail, cited his alleged attempts to influence bail hearings through social media.
Today (10th May): The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a new charge sheet against BRS leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case. The court will hear the arguments regarding the seventh charge sheet on May 13. Kavitha’s plea for bail is scheduled for May 24 after being rejected on May 6, extending her judicial custody. ED’s investigation revealed alleged corruption and bribery.
On 2nd May: K Kavitha, a BRS leader, is seeking bail in the Delhi Excise Scam case. She argues that her arrest was unnecessary and politically motivated, aimed at hindering her election campaign. Kavitha claims the investigating agencies have no substance to support her alleged involvement in the scam and accuses them of tarnishing her reputation for political gain. The court is set to announce its decision on May 6.
New Delhi: Today( 22nd April): The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi is yet to decide on the bail plea of K Kavitha, a prominent leader of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS), linked to a CBI case involving the Excise Policy. Allegations state that the ruling party aims to tarnish her and her father’s reputation for political gain in the upcoming 2024 general elections. Kavitha was arrested in connection with an alleged liquor policy scam and is facing allegations of irregularities in the modification of the excise policy. The investigating agencies aim to establish a broader conspiracy related to the formulation and execution of the Excise Policy, and they claim that the alleged actions resulted in a loss of Rs 144.36 crore to the exchequer.
Today (22nd April): The Supreme Court has asked the Gujarat Government to respond to the bail plea of retired IAS officer Pradeep Sharma, accused of illegally converting government land during his tenure as collector of Kutch district. After the Gujarat High Court rejected his bail plea, Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court, citing previous misconduct allegations.
Today(on 15th April), Delhi court postpones Manish Sisodia’s bail hearing for the fourth time. Advocate argues for his prolonged incarceration. Central Bureau of Investigation accuses Sisodia of being the mastermind behind the alleged Delhi Excise scam. Enforcement Directorate claims Sisodia participated in the destruction of evidence. Sisodia seeks interim bail to campaign for Aam Aadmi Party during the Lok Sabha polls.
The Allahabad High Court directed that private photos cannot be filed without prior court approval, emphasizing the infringement on privacy rights and potential emotional distress. The court explicitly instructed its registry not to accept private or indecent photographs without prior approval. The directive stemmed from a bail plea in a rape case involving specific private photographs. The accused was granted bail after clarification from their legal counsel.