28 injured in grenade attack in Jammu bus stand, three critical
Jammu: Suspected terrorists Thursday carried out a grenade attack in the crowded general bus stand area in the heart of the city, injuring 28 persons, three among them critically, officials said.
This is the third grenade attack by terrorists in Jammu bus stand since May last year, viewed by security agencies as an attempt to disturb communal harmony and peace in the city.
"So far 28 persons were brought with splinter injuries. Three are critical, of whom two are being operated," Principal, Government Medical College (GMC) hospital, Sunanda Raina told PTI.
Inspector General of Police, Jammu, M K Sinha said preliminary investigation suggested that someone lobbed the grenade in the bus stand area around noon, causing the explosion.
The scene of the blast along B C Road was sealed off by police and a massive hunt has been launched to nab the grenade thrower, Sinha, who immediately rushed to the scene to take stock of the situation, told reporters.
A parked bus of the state road transport corporation (SRTC) suffered extensive damage in the blast which caused panic among the people.
"Whenever there is heightened state of alert, we strengthen checking and frisking but there is always a possibility of someone slipping through and this one seems to be a case like that," the IGP said.
"Obviously the intention is always to disturb the communal harmony and peace," he said and requested the people to maintain calm.
The IGP said the police is collecting the evidence and "we are sure to hunt him down (the attacker)."
Immediately after the explosion, people ran to safety and later as the situation returned to normal evacuated the injured to the hospital.
Police parties along with sniffer dogs and forensic experts rushed to the spot and launched a search operation to nab the attacker, officials said, adding the operation was still going on when last reports were received.
However, no one was arrested in connection with the blast so far, they said.
Earlier on December 28-29 last year, suspected terrorists carried out a grenade attack on the bus stand with the intention to target the local police station building, an attack which took place seven months after another grenade attack along the B C Road left two policemen and a civilian injured on May 24, 2018.
"The blast occurred on the roadside when there was huge rush of people. I had come to drop my wife who was going to board a bus to Punjab," one of the injured, Kuldeep Singh of the Pragwal area of the city, said.
Singh, who is undergoing treatment at Government Medical College hospital for splinter injuries in lower parts of his body, said he felt that somebody hurled something which caused the powerful explosion.
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.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
