Ayodhya seers to hold rally in support of WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh
Ayodhya (UP) (PTI): A group of seers here has announced a rally next week in support of Wrestling Federation of India chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh who is accused of sexually harassing women grapplers.
The seers said they will also protest against the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which they claim "has many loopholes and defective clauses".
The country's top wrestlers, including Sakshi Malik, Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia, have accused Singh, a BJP MP who heads the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI), of sexual harassment and are demanding his arrest.
The seers said that they will hold the rally at Ram Katha Park in Ayodhya on June 5.
"We the seers of Ayodhya and those from other religious places of the country will hold the rally in favour of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh," said Mahant Satyendra Das.
"We will also oppose the POCSO Act as it has got many loopholes and defective clauses," he said.
Subhash Singh, a close associate and personal assistant of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh told PTI, "The rally is being organised on the call given by senior saints and seers of the country."
"The seers from different places, including Haridwar, Kashi, Mathura and other shrines of the country, will attend the rally," he 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.
