Lorry driver Arjun's family accuses vehicle owner of using their emotions for his gain
Kozhikode(Kerala), Oct 2: The family of lorry driver Arjun, who died in the Shirur landslide in Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka, on Wednesday accused the vehicle owner Manaf of using their emotions for his personal gain, an allegation denied by him.
Arjun's family held a press conference at their residence here and told reporters that Manaf, who was initially with them, was now using their emotions for his personal gain, including collecting funds from various sources.
They also claimed that he was characterising them as destitute which was hurtful as many of the family members have jobs.
Arjun's widow, brother-in-law, sisters and parents told TV channels that several efforts were made to get in touch with Manaf to request him to stop saying wrong things about the family on his Youtube channel, but he was ignoring them and not taking their calls.
They warned of legal measures if Manaf did not stop making statements about Arjun and seeking funds in his name.
They also said that no one should give him money in the name of Arjun as the family does not need any financial assistance.
Manaf, reacting to the accusations, said if they can prove he collected funds in Arjun's name, he was willing to be stoned to death.
The lorry owner said he started the Youtube channel when he was alone in Shirur and was making all possible efforts to ensure the search for Arjun's remains was not stopped.
"I made the Youtube channel to ensure no one forgets about him. Now I am speaking on it regarding various issues faced by me during that time. What is wrong with that," he said.
He further said that despite Arjun's family's various accusations, he still considers them as his family and will continue to treat them as such.
On September 25, after Arjun's remains were recovered along with the lorry from Gangawali river near Shirur village, Manaf had said that his efforts to get Arjun back to his family had been vindicated
He had also said that he fulfilled the promise to Arjun's family, especially his father and infant son, that he would be brought back to them.
The July 16 landslide on National Highway 66 claimed the lives of nine people, including that of Arjun.
Manaf had stayed in Karnataka for more than two months till Arjun's remains were recovered from the river.
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.
Cow has unique status, its slaughter can have repercussions on peace: Punjab and Haryana HC
Chandigarh (PTI): The cow is a pious animal and "certain acts" can severely impact peace when they offend beliefs of a "significant population group", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said while dismissing the anticipatory bail given to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter.
Asif was booked along with two others in April this year under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.
"The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society," Justice Sandeep Moudgil said in an order earlier this month. It was made public on Monday.
"This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group," the court said.
The cow is not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India's agrarian economy, the judge said.
According to the state counsel, the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence of cow slaughter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation was imperative for a fair and effective investigation, he submitted.
The court said the Constitution does not merely protect rights in abstraction but seeks to build a just, compassionate, and cohesive society.
"Article 51A(g) Constitution of India enjoins every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It is in this context that the alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order," said the order.
The court observed that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.
'It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences.
"In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," said the court order.
Anticipatory bail, it said, is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.
Protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has been shown to be a habitual offender or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, it said.
The court also cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2005 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case that upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of society.
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also observed that the court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty.
"But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner's conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness. The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity," according to the order.
"Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail," it said.
