Bihar: Jewellers not to sell ornaments to customers with their faces covered
Patna (PTI): In a bid to curb thefts, jewellers in Bihar have decided not to sell ornaments to customers entering shops with their faces covered, a traders' association said on Wednesday.
The state unit of the All India Jewellers and Goldsmith Federation (AIJGF) has asked its members not to display and sell jewellery items to those who visit the outlets wearing face masks.
Talking to reporters here, AIJGF Bihar unit president Ashok Kumar Verma said, "We have decided not to sell items to customers who enter with their faces covered. We will not display and sell jewellery items to women wearing 'hijab', or anyone with a face mask".
The decision was taken for "security reasons and for the safety of jewellers and customers", he said.
Several incidents have taken place in various parts of the country where masked robbers have looted jewellery shops.
"If customers enter jewellery shops with their faces covered, we can't identify them. The move will also help the police ascertain the identity of customers through CCTV footage in case of any theft," Verma said.
Masked criminals looted ornaments worth Rs 25 crore from an outlet in Bhojpur district in March last year, while a jewellery shop was robbed in Siwan in November.
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.
'Sharjeel Imam not a disciple of Umar Khalid,' his counsel tells court
New Delhi (PTI): The counsel for the jailed activist Sharjeel Imam told a court here on Thursday that Umar Khalid never mentored his client before the 2020 Delhi riots, and the prosecution's allegation that Imam was a disciple of Khalid was "absurd."
The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who was hearing arguments on the charge against Imam, an accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Counsels for Imam, Ahmad Ibrahim, and Talib Mustafa submitted before the court that, despite their client and Khalid being the students of the same varsity, Jawaharlal Nehru University, there was no direct or indirect communication between them.
"The allegations find no support from the materials relied upon by the prosecution. Rather, the applicant (Imam) never spoke to Umar Khalid. It is highly improbable and rather unbelievable that the applicant, who, as per the prosecution, was mentored by Umar Khalid, never had any calls or messages with him," Imam's counsel Mustafa said in the court.
He said both were added to two groups, the Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ) and the CAB TEAM, just because they were students of the same university.
Referring to the prosecution's allegation that Imam hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons to cause a 'chakka jam,' which was later escalated into violent riots, his counsel said that there was no evidence that showed that at any point in time Imam had any intention to incite violence.
"In none of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, including speeches. pamphlets, chats and Facebook posts of Imam, there is nothing which could even remotely suggest that the applicant at any point of time had any intention to incite violence," he said.
He also contended that the prosecution tried to create a narrative of religious extremism around Imam by conflating purported discussions of issues affecting a particular religious community.
"Notably, mere academic criticism of events perceived by the applicant to be against a community doesn't make one communal, much less an extremist," he said.
According to the prosecution, Imam, along with other MSJ members, participated in a protest called by Jamia Milia Islamia students, where allegedly pamphlets were distributed to incite communal feelings among the Muslim community and induce them to protest against the CAA.
"Nothing communal in the alleged pamphlet. Merely talks about the discriminatory nature of CAA and its possible consequence if implemented coupled with NRC (National Register of Citizens)," his counsel said, concluding his arguments.
The case pertains to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The Delhi Police has alleged that Imam was involved in deliberate mobilisation, radicalisation and preparation of ground conditions through organised chakka jams, blockage of arterial roads, and disruption of essential services.
He allegedly created and administered the WhatsApp group, Muslim Students of JNU, which functioned as a coordinating mechanism for mobilisation, identification of protest sites.
Police accused Imam of attending and participating in conspiratorial meetings in Jangpura, where the strategy of chakka jam and escalation of protests was discussed.
Imam's role was allegedly not geographically confined to Delhi and acted as a mobiliser and ideologue, as the appellant travelled to Aligarh and other locations, police said.
Police also accused Imam of playing a decisive role in the creation and sustenance of the Shaheen Bagh protest site, which evolved into a prolonged round-the-clock blockade of a major arterial road.
They alleged that the Imam's role was foundational and preparatory, and that liability for conspiracy does not require physical presence at the scene of violence once the plan has been set in motion.
