'Another jumla': Sibal on Amit Shah's 'riots don't take place' in BJP rule remark
New Delhi (PTI): Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Monday termed as "another jumla" Home Minister Amit Shah's remarks that riots don't take place under BJP rule, and cited the number of instances of communal violence under a BJP government at the Centre and in some states.
At a public meeting in Hisua falling under Bihar's Nawada district, Shah said, "Let Prime Minister Narendra Modi return to power in 2024 with majority, giving 40 out of 40 seats (in Bihar), and help BJP form its own government in the assembly polls in 2025. The job of straightening rioters by hanging them upside down ('ulta latka kar') will be done by the BJP."
"Riots don't take place under our rule," he said.
Reacting to the remarks, Sibal said, "Amit Shah: 'Riots don't take place under our rule.' Yet another jumla (rhetoric)."
The former union minister said, "5415 communal riots reported between 2014-2020 (NCRB data). 2019 alone 25 communal riots UP(9), Maharashtra (4), MP(2). Communal violence: Haryana(2021) highest cases, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh (April 2022)".
In the wake of communal violence in West Bengal and Bihar, Sibal had on Sunday questioned the "silence" of Prime Minister Modi over the matter, and said "let not 2024 general elections be the reason" for the violence.
Sibal's remarks had come after communal violence rocked Sasaram and Bihar Sharif towns during Ram Navami festivities.
Sibal, who was a Union minister during the UPA 1 and 2 regimes, quit the Congress in May last year and was elected to the Rajya Sabha as an independent member with the Samajwadi Party's support. He recently floated a non-electoral platform 'Insaaf' aimed at fighting injustice.
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.
