SC dismisses singer Neha Rathore's plea to quash FIR against over her social media posts
New Delhi, Oct 13 (PTI): Go and face trial, the Supreme Court told singer and activist Neha Singh Rathore on Monday while refusing to entertain her plea challenging an FIR against her over a social media post on the Pahalgam terror attack. The apex court also clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said that at this stage it is not interfering in the issue of the "charge of mutiny" (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India).
The top court also granted her liberty to raise the issues at the time of framing of charges.
"It is merely a rejection of quashing. Go and face trial," the bench said.
The singer had moved the apex court challenging a September 19 order of the Allahabad High Court which refused to quash the FIR.
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 a 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.
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.
