Reports claiming lack of evidence against WFI chief wrong, probe underway: Delhi Police
New Delhi (PTI): The investigation into the sexual harassment case against WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh is under progress and reports claiming that the Delhi Police has not found sufficient evidence are "wrong", officials said on Wednesday.
The police had earlier said that they had not found sufficient evidence to arrest Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) Singh, who is accused of sexually harassing seven female wrestlers, including a minor.
Later, taking to Twitter, the Delhi Police said, "Several media channels are running a story that the Delhi Police hasn't found sufficient evidence in the cases registered against the Ex-President of WFI and a final report in the matter is due to be submitted before the concerned court.
"It is to clarify that this news is 'wrong' and the investigation into this sensitive case is under progress with all sensitivity," it tweeted.
The wrestlers, who had been protesting at Jantar Mantar since April 23 seeking the arrest of Singh, were removed from the site by the police on Sunday after they tried to march to the new Parliament building following its inauguration.
They were detained before being released later.
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.
