Trust vote: Karnataka assembly adjourned till tomorrow amid uproar
Bengaluru, Jul 18: The Karnataka assembly was adjourned till Friday morning amid acrimony during the debate on the motion of confidence moved by chief minister H D Kumaraswamy to decide the fate of his 14-month-old government.
The House was adjourned by Deputy Speaker Krishna Reddy as the Congress members persistently shouted slogans against the BJP as the proceedings wore on with Kumaraswamy yet to make his speech on the motion.
Before the House was adjourned, BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa declared that his party members would stay put in the House itself overnight and even till the time the trust vote was decided.
"We will stay until the trust vote is decided," Yeddyurappa declared.
He said the confidence motion was not even discussed properly for 15 minutes and other issues were brought in by the ruling coalition members to delay the trust vote.
"There has been a breach of constitutional framework," he said, adding that it was unparalleled.
"To protest against this, we will sleep here itself," Yeddyurappa 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.
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.
