Raj Thackeray sees Pawar senior's hand in Maha political developments
Pune (PTI): Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) president Raj Thackeray on Tuesday claimed that the political developments in Maharashtra could have the blessings of NCP supremo Sharad Pawar himself.
He was talking to reporters here about NCP leader Ajit Pawar and eight other MLAs joining the Shiv Sena-BJP government in the state on Sunday, splitting the Sharad Pawar-led party.
"What has happened in the state is very disgusting....This is nothing but an insult to the voters of the state," Raj Thackeray said.
"Sharad Pawar started all these things in Maharashtra. He first experimented with `Pulod' (Purogami Lokshahi Dal) government back in 1978. Maharashtra had never witnessed such political scenarios ever. All these things started with Pawar, and ended with Pawar," he added.
The MNS chief then claimed that Sharad Pawar himself could be behind the recent developments.
"Praful Patel, Dilip Walse-Patil and Chhagan Bhujbal are not the ones who will go with Ajit Pawar (on their own and without Pawar senior's blessings)," 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.
