#legalnews Archives - Prime Legal

28 Jun

Karnataka’s Political Scandal Deepens: Fourth FIR Filed Against Ex-MP Prajwal Revanna in Sexual Assault Probe.

Blog #FIR, #legalnews, janatadal, revanna, SexualAssault

Prajwal Revanna, a former Member of Parliament from the Janata Dal (Secular) party, finds himself at the center of a major scandal that has rocked Karnataka’s political landscape. The controversy erupted in late April 2024, just before the Lok Sabha elections, when over 2,900 video clips allegedly from Revanna’s mobile phones were leaked to the public. These leaks triggered a series of sexual misconduct allegations against the politician, leading to multiple legal cases.

The first FIR was filed on April 28, 2024, by a woman who had worked as a house help for the Revanna family. She accused both Prajwal Revanna and his father, HD Revanna, of rape. This initial case raised alarming questions about the potential extent of the alleged misconduct within the Revanna household.

A second FIR followed on May 2, 2024, when a 44-year-old political worker accused Prajwal of rape. The alleged assault reportedly occurred in his official quarters in Hassan city in 2021. The complainant claimed Revanna recorded the assault and used the footage for blackmail, forcing her into further sexual encounters between January 1, 2021, and April 25, 2024.

On May 8, 2024, a third FIR was registered based on a complaint from another house help, a woman in her sixties from Mysuru. Revanna was booked for repeated rape in this case, further intensifying the legal pressure on the former MP.

The latest and fourth FIR, filed in June 2024, involves accusations of sexual assault and non-consensual recording of private video calls. The victim reportedly initially contacted Revanna regarding her son’s school admission, after which he allegedly began making inappropriate video calls. This FIR also implicates three others: former BJP MLA Preetham Gowda and two associates, Kiran and Sharath, for allegedly distributing compromising images.

Revanna is currently in judicial custody for 14 days, with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) requesting a body warrant to keep him in custody until June 29 for the latest case. The SIT is actively investigating all four cases, questioning multiple individuals and gathering evidence.

The charges against Revanna include sections of the Indian Penal Code related to outraging a woman’s modesty, voyeurism, and rape. Additional charges under the Information Technology Act have been applied for violation of privacy. The case has significant political implications, as it involves a member of a prominent political family in Karnataka and has connections to other political figures.

The scandal has already had significant political fallout. Revanna has been suspended from the JD(S) party and was defeated in the Hassan constituency during the April 26 Lok Sabha elections. The involvement of a former BJP MLA in the latest FIR suggests potential cross-party ramifications.

As the SIT’s investigation continues to uncover new details and allegations, the case has drawn significant public attention and raised questions about the abuse of power by political figures. The ongoing probe may have far-reaching consequences for regional politics in Karnataka and potentially at the national level, underscoring the importance of addressing allegations of misconduct by public officials.

Written by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

28 Jun

SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT AND AWARDED THE EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

CASE NAME: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

DATED ON: OCTOBER 03, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss applications for taking on record their written statements in a civil suit. The court ruled that the 30-day period for filing written statements had expired on 08.03.2020. The court also ruled in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the orders of this that the order dated 23.03.2020, effective from 15.03.2020, would not benefit the applicants/defendants since the limitation period had expired. The court also ruled that the court’s orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only extended the period of limitation, not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff, IL and FS Financial Services Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money and consequential reliefs in C.S. No. 177 of 2019 against nine defendants. The 30-day period for filing written statements expired on 08.03.2020 and the condonable period of 90 days expired on 06.06.2020.

The appellants filed applications for the defendants on 20.01.2021, requesting an extension of the time for the defendants’ written statements. The reasons for this were the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the Government of India’s advisories, the Disaster Management Act, the lockdown imposed by the Government of West Bengal, and the closure of the answering applicant’s office.

The affidavits relied on the court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the period of limitation until further orders. The plaintiffs opposed these applications, arguing that the orders would not help since the limitation period had expired before 15.03.2020. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of 18.09.2020 in Sagufa Ahmed to support its contention. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s stand but did not take the written statements on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article-142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ORDER 5 RULE 1(1): Summons.— When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim

Order 8 Rule 1:Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

ORDER 8 RULE 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

COMMERCIAL COURT ACT:

Section – 16: Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes-

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
Whether the appellants are allowed to file the written statement after the expiration the limited time period in the special circumstances or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Counsel for the appellants, used the judgment in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, to argue that extraordinary measures are crucial in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that orders of 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, and 10.07.2020 were addressed in the same In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The court distinguished Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra) in paras 28.1, 28.2 and 33.4 of Prakash Corporates (supra), stating that the period envisaged in the order dated 23.09.2021 should be excluded from computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement. The court ruled that the decision in Sagufa Ahmed is irrelevant to the present case, as the extended period expired on 06.06.2020.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the applicants have forfeited their right to file the written statements and the hon’ble High Court justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and not taking the written statements on record.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for statutes of limitations in cases related to the pandemic. The court took suo motu cognizance and issued orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protecting parties’ rights and ensuring their remedies and defenses were not barred. The orders of 23.03.2020 and 08.03.2021 were issued in a case involving Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until further orders. The court also extended the period between 15.03.2020 and the lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area.

The Supreme Court of India has issued directions to address the challenges faced by litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order dated 08.03.2021 extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law or special laws, with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The court believes that the order dated 15.03.2020 has served its purpose and should come to an end.

The court has also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, allowing the balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020 to become available with effect from 15.03.2021. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will also be excluded from computing periods prescribed under various laws. The government is also required to amend guidelines for containment zones, allowing for medical emergencies, essential goods and services, time-bound applications, and educational and job-related requirements.

The Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will be excluded from computing the period prescribed under various laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This decision has a significant impact on the current controversy, as it excludes the period for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.

The Court in Prakash Corporates (supra) also noted that the order of 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges were not available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed’s case. The outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay is 120 days from the date of summons.

JUDGEMENT:

As has been set out hereinabove, summons was served on 07.02.2020, but the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The applicants filed for written statements and extension of time on 20.01.2021, and the High Court’s judgment needs to be set aside. The principle underlying the court’s orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation would benefit the applicants-defendants.

The Appeals are allowed, and the written statements filed on 20.01.2021, are directed to be taken on record. The suit will proceed with the appeals, and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

28 Jun

HIGH COURT: BEING EMPLOYED IN PAKISTAN DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE ONE A CITIZEN OF PAKISTAN.

Prime Legal

Blog, Kerala HC, legal news, News & Media links #Citizenship, #Constitution, #EnemyNation, #EnemyPropertyAct, #ImmoveableProperties, #KerelaHighCourt, #legalnews, #pakistan, #Petitioner, #property

The Custodian of Enemy Property for India has listed up to sixty-eight immovable properties in Kerala as ‘enemy properties,’ and thus, the High Court’s order can alleviate other similar cases as well. undefined

Thiruvananthapuram: In a recent relief to the 74-year-old man from Malappuram in Kerala, the Kerala High Court has set aside the restrictions placed on the property owned by him by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, claiming that the man had purchased the land from his father who used to work in the neighbouring country, Pakistan.

A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham stated in the order produced on Monday that if a person went to an enemy nation in order to find a job, then it could not be assumed that he was a person from enemy nation.

There are as many as 68 immovable properties in Kerala which have been classified by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as ‘enemy properties,’ and thus the HC order may mean relief in other similar cases as well.

P Ummer Koya, a retired police official and a native of Chettippadi in Malappuram challenging the archaic practice when the Parappanangadi village officer in Malappuram rejected his request to pay the land tax of 20. 5 cents of land for which he had recorded from his father Kunji Koya who once worked in Pakistan for few years.

The respective revenue authorities stated that the property in question was taken over under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and was under investigation by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as the petitioner’s father was suspected to be an ‘enemy’ (Pakistan national) as per the definition contained in the said Act and, therefore, the property in question was also considered to be an ‘enemy property’. Hence, on the land, the restriction was imposed by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.

The petitioner Ummer, with advocate M A Asif, argued that his father was born in Malappuram in 1902 and was domiciled in India when the Constitution was enacted in 1950. He visited Pakistan in 1953 in order to search for a job he had been a helper in a hotel in Pakistan for a short period of time.

He also said his father felt threatened by the police when he was still a national of Pakistan and approached the centre to know his citizenship status and the centre advised him that Kunji did not take the Pakistani citizenship willingly, therefore he still remains an Indian citizen. For this reason, the said property could not be rightly regarded as ‘enemy property’ as contended by Ummer’s counsel. Kunji also passed away in India and was buried in Malappuram district.

The court directed that since the father of the petitioner can not be termed as an ‘Enemy’ and his properties can not be termed as ‘Enemy Property’, the restriction imposed on the land should be quashed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

26 Jun

SUPREME COURT UPHELD AND THE JUDGEMENT OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY AND SET ASIDE THE CIVIL APPEAL.

CASE NAME: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2023

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 09, 2023
QUORUM: HONOURABLE CIJ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE P.B. PARDIWALA & JUSTICE MANOJ MISHRA.

INTRODUCTION

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in New Delhi dismissed an appeal against an order from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in 2013. The first respondent, Ratnagiri Gas And Power Private Limited, filed a petition against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., seeking resolution of issues related to non-availability of domestic gas, alternate fuel contracts, and fixed charges. CERC held the appellant liable, which was upheld by APTEL. The court granted the appellant the liberty to move the court again if necessary. The first respondent filed an execution petition, seeking payment of Rs 5287.76 crores and Rs 1826 crores, in accordance with the APTEL order.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent, RGPPL, a joint venture of NTPC Ltd., Gas Authority of India Ltd, MSEB Holding Company, ICICI, IDBI, SBI, and Canara Bank, took over the assets of Dabhol Power Company Limited after its operations were closed down. The first respondent owns a gas-based generating station in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, with 95% allocated to the State of Maharashtra and the rest to Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli. The appellant, MSEDCL, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the first respondent in 2007 for 25 years. The first respondent received gas supply from RIL until September 2011, but a decline in supply was attributed to low-yielding KG-D6 gas fields. The issue was raised with the Central Government and placed before the Empowered Group of Ministers on 24 December.

The first respondent entered into a Gas Supply Agreement/Gas Transportation Agreement with GAIL to supply Recycled Liquid Natural Gas under spot cargo. The appellant, however, refused to schedule power at the agreed rates, claiming that the first respondent failed to obtain their approval before entering into the agreement. The appellant argued that the declaration of capacity on RLNG was unilateral and arbitrary, violating Clause 5.9 of the Power Purchase Agreement. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 79 of the Electricity Act 2003 to resolve the issue of non-payment of fixed charges, the reservations of beneficiaries to enter alternate contractual arrangements for fuel, and the revision of the NAPAF.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT

Clause (4.3) Declared Capacity

“Primary Fuel for RGPPL is LNG/Natural gas and/or RLNG. Normally capacity of the station shall be declared on gas and/or RLNG for all three power blocks. However, if agreed by MSEDCL, RGPPL shall make arrangements of Liquid fuel(s) for the quantum required by MSEDCL. In such a case the capacity on liquid fuel shall also be taken into account for the purpose of Availability, Declared Capacity and PLF calculations till the time Liquid fuel(s) stock agreed/requisitioned by MSEDCL is available at site.”

Clause (5.9) Gas Supply Agreement (GSA)/ Gas Transportation Agreement (GTA)

The gas supply agreement for 1.5 MMTPA R-LNG up to September 2009 is in place, sourced through Petronet LNG Ltd and re-gasified at their Dahej terminal. Commercial implications of the GSA/GTA contract will be signed separately with MSEDCL. The total gas/LNG will be procured through short-term and long-term contracts through GAIL, under GoI’s direction. RGPPL must obtain MSEDCL’s approval on contracting terms and price before entering the contract.

ELECTICITY ACT, 2003

SECTION-79: FUNCTION OF CENTRAL COMMISSION

(1) The Central Commission shall discharge the following functions :–

The Act regulates the tariffs of generating companies owned or controlled by the Central Government, those with a composite scheme for electricity generation and sale in multiple states, and inter-state transmission of electricity. It determines tariffs for inter-state transmission, issues licenses for transmission licensees and electricity traders, adjudicates disputes involving generating companies or transmission licensees, levies fees for the Act, specifies Grid Codes and Standards, enforces quality, continuity, and reliability of service by licensees, sets trading margins in inter-state electricity trading, and discharges other functions assigned under the Act.

(2) The Central Commission shall advise the Central Government on all or any of the following matters :–

The Central Commission is responsible for formulating National Electricity Policy and tariff policy, promoting competition, efficiency, and economy in the electricity industry, promoting investment, and addressing other government-referred matters. It ensures transparency and is guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan, and tariff policy.

ISSUSES RAISED:

whether the CERC and APTEL were justified in affixing liability to pay fixed charges on the appellant.
Whether the dispute in the particular case primarily turns on the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement or not.

CERC ORDER DATED 30 JULY 2023 AND APTEL JUDGEMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 22 APRIL 2015.

The CERC allowed a petition and held the appellant liable to pay fixed capacity charges under the Power Purchase Agreement. It ruled that the appellant’s decision not to schedule RLNG influenced variable charges, not fixed charges. Further, the appeal in APTEL was made and they directed that if the appellant wanted to not pay for RLNG, it must compensate the first respondent, as it is liable under Article 5.2 of the PPA. No prior consent was required for liability to arise. APTEL dismissed the appeal. The Civil Appeal against APTEL’s decision was initially disposed of by this Court. Since the appellant was not facing any punitive action for recovery, and the appellant was granted the liberty to approach the court when needed. The present appeal is before the Supreme Court of India.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The appellant challenged APTEL’s judgment and final order, arguing that the CERC divided Clause 4.3 and Clause 5.9 of the PPA into two separate categories, absolving the appellant of paying for declared capacity due to RLNG. The placement of the prior approval clause in clause 5.9 suggests it applies to both clause 5.2 and clause 5.3 energy charges. The decision to adopt RLNG has commercial implications, so the prior approval requirement in clause 5.9 is invoked. The compartmentalization of clauses 4.3 and 5.9 is flawed, and the plant availability factor would be less than 70%, reducing capacity charges in accordance with CERC Regulations 2009.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The first Respondent urged that, The appellant established a generating station to meet their electricity needs. After the failure of M/s Enron International and M/s Dabhol Power Company, the station was revived and its assets transferred to RGPPL. The appellant held 13.51% shares in the first respondent. The capacity declaration and demand for charges are in accordance with Clauses 4.3 and 5.2 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The PPA is valid for 25 years and the appellant is bound by Clauses 6.6. and 6.7, which stipulate paying 95% of charges during a dispute.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

TERMS OF PPA

The PPA outlines two types of tariff charges for MSEDCL: capacity charges and energy charges. The former are fixed and subject to revision by the Government of India or Maharashtra, while the latter are calculated using a formula. MSEDCL must schedule energy sending from RGPPL and obtain approval from CERC for provisional billing. The total gas requirements are procured through GAIL, with RGPPL obtaining approval before entering into a GSA/GTA.

The first respondent argues that an alternate arrangement with GAIL and capacity declarations based on RLNG was necessary due to a nationwide fuel shortage. The appellant argues that the unilateral decision to declare capacity based on RLNG violated the mandatory approval requirement under clause 5.9 of the PPA, exempting it from liability to pay fixed capacity charges.

FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THE INTENTION OF PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT

The first respondent was established due to the failure of M/s Enron International and M/s Dabhol Power Company to meet Maharashtra’s energy needs. The tariff requirements were determined to preserve the unit’s viability. The appellant’s liability for the former is actual delivery agnostic, as long as the declared capacity is made in terms of the PPA.

The appellant’s interpretation of the PPA contradicts the original purpose and intendment of the parties, as it implies that capacity charges can be avoided and made subject to the appellant’s consent. A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better. The appellant’s arguments would require reading in implied terms contrary to the contractual provisions, which is permissible only in a narrow set of circumstances.

JUDGEMENT:

In the present context, bearing in mind the background of the establishment of the first respondent, and the shortfall of domestic gas for reasons beyond the control of the first respondent, such a deviation from the plain terms is not merited and militates against business efficacy as it has a detrimental impact on the viability of the first respondent.

The execution proceedings pursuant to the above-mentioned execution petition before the APTEL be continued. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view the full judgement: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

25 Jun

SUPREME COURT GIVES ACTIVIST MAHESH RAUT INTERIM BAIL IN THE BHIMA-KOREGAON CASE.

Prime Legal

Articles, Blog, News & Media links, Supreme Court #Arrests #Trial, #BHIMA-KOREGAONCASE, #bombayhighcourt, #InterimRelease, #JudicialCustody, #JUSTICE, #legalnews, #LegalPost, #NIA, #SupremeCourt, bail

Mahesh Raut, an activist and one of the defendants in the Bhima-Koregaon case, was recently granted interim release by the Supreme Court for two weeks so that he could attend rites when his grandmother passed away.

Raut was granted temporary bail by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti from June 26 to July 10.The bench mandated Raut’s unconditional surrender on July 10. It further stated that the Special NIA court’s terms and conditions will apply to the interim bail.

“Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the length of Raut’s previous incarceration, and the nature of the request, we are inclined to give interim bail of two weeks to the applicant, which may begin on June 26 and expire on July 10. The NIA Special Court will specify the conditions of release. NIA may ask the trial court to set strict requirements. The judgement from the highest court said that the petitioner must surrender on July 10.

The 33-year-old Raut’s request for temporary release was rejected by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Raut’s attorney informed the supreme court on the final day of the trial that he was pleading for an interim release so he could go to Gadchiroli to attend funeral rites following the passing of his grandmother.

The Bombay High Court’s September 21 ruling allowing Raut, who was detained in June 2018 and is now being held in judicial custody at the Taloja jail, bail was challenged by NIA, and the supreme court granted the stay. Prosecution claims that comments made during the gathering, which was reportedly sponsored by the CPI(M), a banned terror organisation, were provocative and inflammatory, and that this ultimately resulted in violence in Koregaon Bhima hamlet, close to Pune, in 2018.

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

1 2 3 … 13