Drugs case: High Court rejects bail plea of Kannada film actors Ragini Dwivedi, Sanjjanna Galrani
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday declined to grant bail to Kannada film actresses Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani in the drugs case.
Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar also dismissed the bail plea of four others, including the anticipatory bail application of film producer Shivaprakash, in the case.
The Central Crime Branch, probing the drug case arrested Ragini Dwivedi and Sanjjanaa Galrani in September. Shivaprakash is still at large, the police said.
The two actresses and the drug supplier Prashant Ranka were in the CCB custody till September 13 and were later remanded to judicial custody on September 14.
Prashant was also denied bail. Since then they were lodged in the Parappana Agrahara Central jail here.
The city police intensified investigation into the drug abuse among celebrities after the Narcotics Control Bureau arrested three people, including a Malayalam tele serial actress Anikha and Bineesh Kodiyeri's aide Mohammed Anoop with synthetic drugs.
The trio were charged with supplying drugs to the celebrities in Bengaluru including Kannada film actors and singers. One of the high profile accused is Aditya Alva, son of former minister Late Jeevaraj Alva.
The CCB probing the case had even raided the Mumbai residence of Bollywood actor Vivek Oberoi who has married Alva's sister but to no avail.
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.
Legal heirs can claim reimbursement if govt employee dies during treatment: Allahabad HC
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Saturday said that if a government employee or pensioner dies during treatment or becomes incapable of making a claim, his legal heirs can also claim reimbursement of medical expenses.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the verdict on the petition of Chandra Choor Singh.
The petitioner's father was a retired deputy registrar. He was treated at private hospitals in Lucknow, where he passed away during treatment. The petitioner applied for reimbursement of medical expenses, but the department rejected the claim, stating that only the "beneficiary" can make a claim under the rules.
ALSO READ: KSRTC MD Akram Pasha receives SKOCH National Award for transparent recruitment initiative
The state government argued that under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011, a claim can only be made by a beneficiary, and the petitioner did not fall within this category. It also cited the limit of Rs 5,000 set out in the succession certificate submitted by the petitioner.
The court rejected this argument of the state government, stating that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011, were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that if a beneficiary dies or becomes incapable of making a claim, his or her legal heirs cannot be deprived of this right.
Applying the principle of "reading down", the Court directed that Rule 16 be interpreted to include legal heirs, especially when there is no other eligible beneficiary.
The court also clarified that if there is no dispute about being an heir, it is not appropriate to reject the claim merely on technical grounds.
Ultimately, the court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim and take a decision within two months, and if the claim is found to be correct, payment should be ensured within one month.
