Udupi: Physical torture, forced abortion; wife file complaint against judge
Udupi: The Udupi women's police station has registered case against Ashok Tammaiah, the fourth JMFC judge in Udupi court, Who was transferred to Mangaluru court a few months back. His wife Varalaxmi has alleged that the judge physically tortured and forcibly aborted her child.
Married to Ashok in 2012, Varalaxmi complained that Ashok threatened to burn her alive when the couple was living at the residence of Ashok's sister-in-law in Bengaluru. She also charged that Ashok, Tammaiah, Siddappa, Shweta, Rupa, and Ratnamma had tortured her physically and mentally in Bengaluru.
She later mentioned in her complaint that Ashok hit her with a stick for not bringing money, at Brahammagiri Apartment in Udupi, and also roughed up their baby. According to the complaint, Ashok sold the jewellery, which was gifted by Varalaxmi's parents as dowry, and now he is torturing her to bring more money.
"When Varalaxmi was pregnant in June/July 2018, Ashok allegedly aborted her child by giving pills," she added in her complaint.
The Udupi women's police station has registered a case against Ashok under IPC section 498 (A), 324, 504, 506, 313 and 149 IPC.
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.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
