Today, On 1st August, suspended JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna Convicted for Repeated Rape and Recording Assaults; Bengaluru Court Finds Him Guilty Under POCSO and IPC, Will Announce Sentence Tomorrow After Holding Him Responsible for Heinous Crimes Against Multiple Women.
Supreme Court rules that police must serve Section 35 BNSS notices through physical delivery, not WhatsApp. Court emphasizes that liberty cannot be compromised by digital shortcuts.
The Supreme Court criticized the Punjab & Haryana High Court for a 2-year delay in a bail hearing, stressing that courts must be sensitive in matters of personal liberty.
Suspended JD(S) leader Prajwal Revanna has filed a second bail plea before the special court hearing cases against lawmakers. He is facing serious rape allegations and seeks relief citing delays and changed circumstances in the trial process.
The Special Court for People’s Representatives has finished the trial in one of the rape cases against ex-MP Prajwal Revanna and reserved its verdict for July 30, with Revanna in judicial custody.
Today, On 3rd July, During the hearing on Prajwal Revanna’s bail plea, his lawyer told the Karnataka High Court, “Article 21 and personal liberty are at stake,” and sought time to file an affidavit. The Court adjourned the matter.
Today, On 27th June, The Uttar Pradesh government paid man Rs.5 lakh as compensation for illegal detention following the Supreme Court criticism to the State for keeping the man in jail for nearly a month even after he was granted bail.
Today, On 25th June, The Supreme Court sharply criticised Uttar Pradesh jail officials for unlawfully keeping a man in Ghaziabad jail despite a clear bail order, calling it a serious violation of personal liberty and raising concerns over systemic injustice.
The Jharkhand High Court criticised a Hazaribagh Magistrate for ignoring Supreme Court guidelines and sending a 66-year-old man to custody in a complaint case. The court called the action “unfortunate and unwarranted” during the hearing.
In the Bhima Koregaon case, the Supreme Court questioned the delay in filing a bail appeal by an accused in custody for 8 years, saying, “Some urgency must be shown” as the May 2 order was already passed.
