Court grants bail to actor Ashish Kapoor in rape case
New Delhi, Sep 14 (PTI): A Delhi court has granted bail to TV actor Ashish Kapoor in a rape case, saying he could not be kept incarcerated merely because the Delhi Police thought that he could commit a similar offence in future.
Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh was hearing the bail plea of Kapoor, against whom the Civil Lines police station had registered an FIR of penal provisions of rape, voluntarily causing hurt and common intention for an alleged incident dated August 9.
In an order dated September 10, the court said, "It is not the case (of the prosecution) that the accused or applicant is required for the purpose of investigation any more. The accused cannot be kept behind bars just for the reason that the police apprehends that he may commit a similar offence in future."
The court said the prosecution has underlined that the complainant could be threatened by the accused or he may flee from justice, but no action had been taken on the woman's complaint that she was approached on behalf of the accused, just 10 days after the alleged incident.
The court said two co-accused persons in the case have been granted bail earlier, and if the police were genuinely concerned that the complainant could be influenced, it would have challenged the relief.
"Further, the police did not even serve notice for appearance to the accused (Kapoor) for joining the investigation except on August 30, i.e., after three weeks of the incident.
"No efforts were made to make the accused join the investigation for a good 21 days, and all of a sudden, the police served the notice, with direction to join the investigation forthwith, and as per the Investigating Officer (IO), a police team was sent to Goa/Pune to arrest the accused simultaneously," the court said.
Kapoor was arrested within three days on September 2, and if the accused wanted to abscond, he would have done so immediately after the case was registered, it said.
"In fact, anticipatory bail application on his behalf was moved on September 2, only after the service of notice on August, with the direction to join the investigation immediately and not before that," the court said.
It said that Kapoor could not be expected to remain in his house at all times in the hope that the police may come any time.
The court said Kapoor had been quizzed in police custody for three days. But no sincere efforts were made to recover the mobile phone, neither were searches carried out, it added.
"Besides, there was nothing to suggest that the accused did not cooperate in the investigation," the court said.
"No previous involvement of the accused in any offence whatsoever has been brought to the notice of the court. The investigations, filing of police report, and further proceedings may take some time, and no purpose shall be served by keeping the accused behind bars," it said.
The woman's complaint that she was approached by people known to the accused can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions, it added.
"Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the facts and circumstances that have been brought to the notice of the court in view of the documents/ CCTV footages, in particular that the accused/applicant is not required for investigation any more, being permanent resident of Delhi and his clean antecedents, I find merits in the bail application and the same is accordingly allowed," judge Singh said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
