Our MLAs are being kidnapped, alleges Karnataka Congress in assembly
Bengaluru, Jul 18: The Congress Thursday alleged in the Karnataka assembly its MLA Shreemant Patil, who suddenly disappeared after being with them at a resort and went incommunicado, had been 'kidnapped' as part of efforts to 'topple' the coalition government.
As the assembly debated the confidence motion moved by chief minister H D Kumaraswamy, senior minister D K Shivakumar alleged Patil was kidnapped and admitted to a hospital in Mumbai.
Patil's photographs emerged showing him lying on a bed in a hospital and undergoing ECG related tests.
Raising the issue, Shivakumar said "With folded hands I am requesting the Speaker of the house, my party MLAs have been kidnapped.I have got a call from the family members. I want you to bring them back sir. We want police protection."
The Congress MLAs said in unison that the lawmakers were living in fear and Patil was kidnapped, kept in a room, taken by a special flight and then admitted to a hospital.
Shivakumar said they would produce documents to show that Patil was forcibly admitted to the hospital to skip assembly.
"I have documentary evidence. He is being held in a hospital... Patil traveled with Lakshman Savadi (former BJP MLA) in the flight," he alleged.
Congress state president Dinesh Gundu Rao alleged Patil was with him till Wednesday, attended a meeting and was in good health. However, suddenly he disappeared from the resort, where his party MLAs were staying.
Rao said, "When we tried to check where he had gone, we could not find him. He was in good health but see the drama of the BJP."
The remark led to pandemonium with BJP shouting him down amid acrimonious exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition.
Intervening, Kumaraswamy said "In the case of Patil, you must explain, who sent his photos on WhatsApp, who travelled with him in the flight. The speaker has the responsibility to safeguard the MLAs since numbers matter in the vote."
C T Ravi of the BJP told the Congress members Patil was in their 'custody' only and they were making the allegation against his party as they lacked numbers.
"They don't have the numbers. They are playing this game."
The Speaker then asked "Should I blindfold myself and say I have no relation with it? Where are we heading?"
He told the House that he got a letter, not written on the letterhead, purportedly by Patil saying he had developed chest pain and had been hospitalised.
"Evidence before me is that it is not natural.... I am disturbed," the speaker said and directed Home Minister M B Patil to get in touch with the MLA's family and enquire about his condition and report back to him.
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.
