MI beat SRH by 4 wickets in IPL
Mumbai, Apr 17 (PTI): Mumbai Indians beat Sunrisers Hyderabad by four wickets in their Indian Premier League match here on Thursday.
MI chased down the target of 163 with 11 balls to spare with Will Jacks top-scoring with 36 off 26 balls. Ryan Rickelton chipped in with 31, while Rohit Sharma and Suryakumar Yadav made 26 each.
Captain Hardik Pandya played a cameo of 21 off just nine balls as MI reached 166 for 6 in 18.1 overs.
For SRH, captain Pat Cummins (3/26) was the most successful bowler while Eshan Malinga got two.
Earlier, Sunrisers Hyderabad scored a competitive 162 for five after being invited to bat.
SRH rode on useful contributions from Abhishek Sharma (40 off 28 balls), Heinrich Klaasen (37), Travis Head (28), Nitish Kumar Reddy (19) and some lusty hitting in the fag end from Aniket Verma (18 off 8 balls) to go past 160-run mark.
Brief Scores:
SRH: 162 for 5 in 20 overs (Abhishek Sharma 40; Will Jacks 2/14).
MI: 166 for 6 in 18.1 overs (Will Jacks 36, Ryan Rickelton 31; Pat Cummins 3/26).
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.
HC says no coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row, allows video appearance
Bengaluru, May 15 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against singer Sonu Nigam until the next date of hearing, in connection with a recent criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a concert.The court also permitted the singer to appear via video conferencing for recording his statement, if required by the investigating officer (IO). Alternatively, if the IO insists on a physical appearance, the court said the officer could visit Nigam, with the singer bearing the associated expenses.
The case stems from a complaint lodged after an incident at a concert, where some Kannadiga fans had requested Nigam to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly took offence to the tone of the request and reportedly remarked, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” drawing a controversial comparison to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, Nigam’s counsel, Dhananjay Vidyapati, argued that the complaint was filed solely for publicity and that the alleged offence of public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC was not made out.
He also said it was a solitary incident, the concert proceeded smoothly, and the complaint was filed by a third party.
The state counsel, however, maintained that Nigam’s remarks needed to be examined in the course of investigation to determine intent.
“Whether the comments were intentional or not cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 (CrPC). He has not cooperated with the investigation. He could have at least said he was busy,” the State submitted.
Arguing against special privileges, the State’s counsel added, “A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under 482… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement.”
When the court asked why Nigam’s statement could not be recorded virtually or even at his residence, the State objected, saying that would amount to giving the singer “too much convenience.”
Responding to concerns raised by Nigam’s counsel about the media spectacle that would follow a physical appearance, the court observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.”
The court recorded the State’s submission that no coercive steps would be taken if Nigam cooperated with the investigation. It stayed the filing of any final report in the case until the next date of hearing.
