Mangaluru Police withdraw case over Namaz on road near Kankanady Masjid
Mangaluru: The Mangaluru city police have withdrawn the suo-moto case filed in connection with a viral video showing individuals offering Namaz on a road near Kankanady Masjid on May 24. The Kadri police initially lodged the case after the video circulated on social media, leading to widespread outrage within the coastal Muslim community.
The video, reportedly filmed from a road near the masjid in Kankanady, sparked significant reaction, with community members calling for the withdrawal of the case. Representatives from the Muslim community met with the Commissioner of Police to request the case be dropped.
On Thursday, it was reported that the police had indeed withdrawn the voluntarily registered case, although official confirmation from the Police Commissioner has not yet been issued.
In a related development, a case under Section 107 of the IPC has been registered against Bajrang Dal leader Sharan Pumpwell for allegedly disturbing societal peace. Pumpwell had reportedly shared the video on his social media handles, exacerbating tensions.
Additionally, the Inspector of Kadri Police Station, who initially registered the suo-moto case, has reportedly been placed on leave.
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.
