NEW DELHI: P Rajagopal, the owner of the Saravana Bhavan chain of restaurants, has died in hospital a week after he surrendered to serve a life sentence for the 2001 kidnapping and murder of an employee. On July 10, 72-year-old Rajagopal had arrived in an ambulance with an oxygen mask strapped to his face after the Supreme Court turned down his request to delay his sentence on medical grounds.
Rajagopal had been admitted to a private hospital after his surrender.
Dubbed the "Dosa king", Rajagopal had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2009 but had to surrender by July 7.
In 2004, Rajagopal was convicted in the kidnapping and murder of an employee, Prince Santhakumar. A local court had sentenced Rajagopal and eight others to 10 years in prison. Five years later, the Madras High Court confirmed the verdict and increased the sentence to life in prison, a punishment then upheld by the Supreme Court in March.
The prosecution had argued that Rajagopal plotted the murder of Santhakumar so he could marry his young wife.
The case, which has attracted considerable attention both in India and abroad, goes back to the 1990s. Rajagopal allegedly wanted to marry the daughter of an assistant manager at Saravana Bhavan's Chennai branch, on the advice of his astrologer.
At the time, Rajagopal had two wives and the young woman, then in her twenties, rejected him. She married Santakumar in 1999. The prosecution told the court Rajagopal threatened the couple in 2001 and demanded they end the marriage.
Days after the couple went to the police, Santhakumar was kidnapped and killed. His body was found in the forests. Born to an onion seller in Tuticorin, Rajagopal began his career as a grocer in Chennai.
courtesy: ndtv.com
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.
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to folk singer Neha Singh Rathore in a case filed against her over a social media post on last year's Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed.
A bench of justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar granted the relief to her after noting that she had appeared before the authorities and recorded her statements in connection with the case.
The top court asked her to continue cooperating in the investigation.
Rathore has challenged Allahabad High Court order of last year rejecting her plea for anticipatory bail in the case.
On January 7, the top court granted interim protection from arrest to Rathore in a case filed against her over the social media post.
The said comments allegedly targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and the BJP in connection with the killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir.
The top court had issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant in the case, and said no coercive steps shall be taken against her.
It had directed Rathore to appear before the investigating officer and cooperate in the probe.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on December 5 last year had rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by the folk singer.
It had observed that Rathore had not cooperated with the investigation despite directions issued by an earlier bench that had dismissed her petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
The FIR against Rathore was registered at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow on April 27, and the investigation is underway.
The FIR accused Rathore of targeting a particular religious community and threatening the unity of the country. She challenged the FIR filed against her by one Abhay Pratap Singh at the Hazratganj Police Station in the last week of April. Singh accused Rathore of having "repeatedly attempted to incite one community against another on religious grounds".
Rathore contended in her plea that she had been wrongfully implicated under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including promoting communal hatred, disturbing public peace, and endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
She also faces charges under the Information Technology Act.
