Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Madras High Court Declined Permission for Conducting Christian Prayers: “Religious Rights Are Not Absolute.”

An application had been filed by the neighbour of the petitioner complaining of the public nature of the prayers of the petitioner impacting the rights of the neighbour. The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed by the neighbour harbouring communal feelings. The Court referred to the verses of the Holy Bible. The investigations led to the revelation that it was not just prayer meetings but rather a full-fledged prayer hall. 

The petitioner had not obtained prior permission for conducting the public prayers and for conducting them in the future proper permission should be obtained. The petitioner also hid the truth which was highly condemned by the Court. The Madras High Court while deciding this case held that the rights granted for practicing the religion is no absolute and cannot be exercised in such a way that it interferes with the rights of others.

Officer Moves To Bombay High Court Challenging Enquiry Against Him

The present case is a result of the inquiry against former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh initiated by the former Commissioner of Police on the allegations of corruption and malpractices. This inquiry was an attempt to thwart the CBI inquiry into the case of the Minister. The High Court had allowed the inquiry and subsequently an FIR was filed against Deshmukh.
The former officer contended the preliminary proceedings to be arbitrary and initiated with a mala fide intention of harassing him for approaching the Constitutional Courts. He contended it to be an attempt to hoodwink the witnesses and to screen evidence against him. The matter is posted for hearing on May 4.

Judge Paying Bribe For Post Of Governor Lowers The Prestige Of Judge: Karnataka High Court

The attempt by a former Karnataka High Court judge to win the Governorship by paying a bribe to a middleman astrologer has tarnished the reputation of judges and the Governor's position. The retired judge had paid an amount of 8.5 Crores to the accused who took the retired judge to meet with political leaders. The accused was later arrested for fraud.

Justice K Natarajan, a single-judge, made the remark while refusing bail to the astrologer, who is accused of defrauding politicians, businessmen, and the former High Court judge, Justice Indrakala and is charged under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. His bail application was rejected on the ground that he had cheated educated people and that if he is granted bail, it is likely for him to tamper with the witnesses and evidence.

Bombay High Court: Seeking Bail When Not In Custody Is Arbitrary Practice

This case revolves around the bail application filed by the accused charged under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 306 for abetment to suicide. It was held necessary to have the accused in custody to facilitate proper investigation. The procedural inconsistencies on the part of the JMFC were brought forward by the Court.

The accused tried to mislead the Court by alleging the Magistrate to be unwilling to listen to the application of the Investigating Officer. The Court also observed that accused had approached the Magistrate for bail and the application was sought for a temporary bail and did not contain the time duration. They had moved to the Sessions Court without being in custody seeking for a regular bail which was rejected.

Nirav Modi Denied Bail For The Third Time

The Magistrate’s Court in United Kingdom rejected the bail plea by NIrav Modi who has been held in the Wandsworth Prison showing concerns about the behavioural aspects and lack of community ties in the country is not sufficient assurance that he would not interfere with witnesses and damaging evidence. 

The Chief Magistrate stated her expectations from India to provide perfectly paginated papers. A security of 2 million Euros had been offered and yet the Court refused to allow the application on the basis of evidence showing him trying to lure away the witnesses or flying off to Egypt. He has a track record of seeking citizenship of another country and also the monetary benefit with the accused is a huge asset for him to escape the holds of justice.

"Loved reading this piece by Brazillia Vaz?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  272  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query