Attacks may recur if pubs are not restricted: Bajrang Dal
Demands ban on live band, ladies bar
Mangaluru: VHP Mahila Pramukh Asha Jagadish on Tuesday threatened that attacks on pubs might recur if restrictions not imposed on the live band, lady's bar, pubs and massage centers in the city.
Speaking at a press conference here, she said "We are not anti-music. But, we oppose extravagant dance. In many parts of the city, live band and lady’s bars have come up. They must be restricted.
VHP District President Jagadish Shenava said that Ladies Bar, Live band, Pubs and Massage Centers have been permitted in Lalbagh, Hampankatta, Pumpwell and other areas of the city. Due to this, many children may miss the right way. Prostitution is also made possible there. Young people are also at risk of choosing wrong paths. “The district administration and the police department must cancel their permissions. Otherwise, massive protests will be held,” he warned.
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.
Couples marrying against parents' wishes can't claim police protection as right: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, Apr 16 (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has observed that couples who marry of their own will against the wishes of their parents cannot claim police protection as a matter of right unless there is a real threat perception to their life and liberty.
The court gave the ruling while deciding an application filed by a couple seeking protection.
It said the court can provide security to a couple in a deserving case but in the absence of any threat perception, such a couple must "learn to support each other and face the society".
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made this observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband seeking police protection and a direction for the private respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life.
The court after going through the averments made in their petition, disposed of their writ petition, noting that there was no serious threat perception to the petitioners.
Disposing of the writ petition, the court observed, "There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of UP and another, wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes."
The court also observed that there was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were in peril.
"There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners," the court noted.
In addition, the court noted that the petitioners had not submitted a specific application in the form of information to the concerned police authorities to file any FIR against the alleged illegal conduct of the private respondents.
However, noting that the petitioners had already submitted a representation to the superintendent of police (SP), Chitrakoot district, the court said, "In case the concerned police find a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law."
Against this backdrop, the court stressed that if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the courts and the police authorities are there to come to their rescue.
In its decision dated April 4, the court disposed of the plea, holding that the petitioners cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.
