Deputy Inspector General of Police issues transfer orders for Sub-Inspectors of Police in Udupi Dist
Udupi: The Deputy Inspector General of Police Dr. Chandragupta has issued an order to transfer the Sub-Inspectors of police in the Mangaluru West Zone with immediate effect.
As per the order, S.I Ravi Basappa Karagi of Udupi City police station transferred to Ajekar police station, S.I Niranjan Hegde of Hebri police station to Yellapur police station of Uttara Kannada district, S.I Mahantesh Jaba Gowda of Sringeri police station to Hebri police station, S.I Sakthivelu of Udupi traffic police station to Shirva police station. Meanwhile, S.I Puneet Kumar B.E, who was released from CSP unit and was awaiting for a posting in western zone office was posted at the Udupi City police station.
In addition S.I Laxman of Udupi District cen Police Station was transferred to Ajekar Station, S.I Madhu B.E of Kota Station was transferred to Shankaranarayana police station, S.I Dilip GR was transferred from Sullia police station to Karkala rural police station.
Furthermore, S.I Sudha Prabhu from Malpe police station was transferred to Kota station, S.I Anil B.M. from Hiriydaka station was transferred to Siddhapur police station, and from Padubidri police station S.I Purushotham A. was transferred to Kaup station.
An order has been issued to transfer the above-mentioned Sub-inspectors, with immediate effect.
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.
