Mangaluru airport director denies allegation of passport tearing by staff
Mangaluru: Mangaluru International Airport’s Director, Vasamsetti Venkateswara Rao, ordered investigations into the allegations of a passenger that her passport was torn into splits by airport security staff.
However according to Venkateswara Rao, the allegations labeled by the family against the security staffs of the airport that they had deliberately torn the passport of Rubeena (28), who was to travel to Dubai from Mangaluru to join her husband in the gulf nation.
Speaking to Varthabharati over phone call, Mangaluru airport director, Vasamsetti Venkateswara Rao, said “We have checked the CCTV footage, and from it we can figure out that, whatever allegations have been made against airport staffs are false and untrue”.
“With the CCTV footage, we can easily conclude that the allegations are false. I don’t know what caused the damage to the passport, but it is definitely not what they passengers have alleged” he added.
He further added that the airport authorities will soon issue a press release in this regard.
Earlier, Vasamsetti Venkateswara Rao, had ordered investigations into the matter after the families allegations that the passport of Rubeena was torned by the security staff when she had been to get child stroller, after handing her passport to the security officer at the gate, for verification.
The family, after Rubeena reached Dubai, had complained the matter to the Abdu Dhabi Embassy, who had then forwarded it to the Mangaluru Airport Director.
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.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
