Firing incident reported in Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court after argument among lawyers
New Delhi: In a shocking incident, firing has been reported at the Tis Hazari Court premises in the national capital on Wednesday. Visual surfaced on social media showed a man firing a shot in air while being surrounded by a group of people.
Delhi Police officials have stated that the firing occurred due to an argument between the lawyers. However, no injuries have been reported so far. The police are on the spot to avoid any possible breakout of violence.
KK Manan, chairman of Bar Council of Delhi has condemned the firing incident and asserted that detailed investigation will be undertaken. “It will be inquired if the weapons were licensed or not. Even if the weapons were licensed, no lawyer or anyone else can use them like this inside or around court premises, news agency ANI quoted KK Manan.
Delhi | A firing incident reported at Tis Hazari Court premises, no injuries reported. Police say that this happened after an argument among lawyers.
— ANI (@ANI) July 5, 2023
(Note: Abusive language)
(Video Source: A lawyer) pic.twitter.com/MMPOQwpWaZ
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.
