bailable warrant

Defamation Case: Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut Fails to Appear in Court, Bailable Warrant Issued

Medha Somaiya accused Raut of making baseless and defamatory allegations against her and her husband Kirit Somaiya of being involved in a scam worth Rs 100 crore.

Mumbai: A court here on Monday, July 4 issued a bailable warrant against Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut after he failed to appear before it in connection with a defamation complaint filed by former BJP MP Kirit Somaiya’s wife Medha Somaiya.

The Sewri metropolitan magistrate’s court had last month issued a process (summons) against Raut, asking him to appear before it on July 4.

However, neither Raut nor his lawyers were present in the court on Monday, Medha Somaiya’s lawyer Vivekanand Gupta said.

“Hence, we made an application for the issuance of a warrant against him, which the court allowed,” Gupta added.

The court later adjourned the matter and kept it for hearing on July 18.

Earlier, the magistrate, while issuing summons, had held that documents and video clips produced on record prima facie revealed that the accused made defamatory statements against the complainant (Medha), so that it will be seen by the public at large and read by people in newspapers.

It was also prima facie proved by the complainant that the words spoken by accused Sanjay Raut were such that it harmed the complainant’s reputation, the court had said.

Medha Somaiya, in her complaint filed through advocates Gupta and Laxman Kanal, claimed Raut had made baseless and completely defamatory allegations against her and her husband, accusing them of being involved in a scam worth Rs 100 crore over the construction and maintenance of some public toilets under the jurisdiction of the Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation.

She had urged the court to begin proceedings against him on charges of defamation, as defined under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

In her plea, Medha also submitted that she was a professor of organic chemistry for more than 20 years at Ramnarian Ruia College, Matunga. She further stated that she has been contributing to more than 25 charitable activities and was awarded a “doctorate” in slum development. “She has an excellent reputation in the society and she is known in the educational and social field in the society,” stated her plea.

Mumbai Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Kangana Ranaut in Javed Akhtar Defamation Case

The actor had failed to appear before the Andheri metropolitan magistrate’s court.

Mumbai: A Mumbai court on Monday issued a bailable warrant against actor Kangana Ranaut after she failed to appear before it in connection with a defamation complaint filed against her by lyricist Javed Akhtar.

The Andheri metropolitan magistrate’s court issued a summons to Ranaut on February 1, 2021, directing her to appear before it on March 1, 2021. However, Ranaut failed to appear on Monday following which the court issued a bailable warrant against her. The court posted the matter for further hearing on March 22, 2021.

Also read: Twitter Deletes Kangana Ranaut’s Tweets For Violating Rules

Last month, the police submitted a report saying an offence of defamation was made out against the actor. Akhtar had filed the complaint against Ranaut for allegedly making baseless and false statements against him which, according to him, damaged his reputation.

Laxmi Vilas Palace Case: Rajasthan HC Stays Arrest Warrant Against Arun Shourie

The property was sold to Bharat Hotels Ltd for Rs 7.52 crore, at a loss of Rs 244 crore to the exchequer.

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan high court on Wednesday stayed the arrest warrant against former Union minister Arun Shourie and one other person in a case involving the sale of a Udaipur hotel at an alleged loss of Rs 244 crore to the exchequer.

The HC, however, told Shourie to appear before the trial court on any day by October 15, 2020, the next date of hearing and furnish a personal bond of Rs two lakh and two sureties of Rs one lakh each.

The hotel’s valuer, Kantilal Vikamsey, has been told to do the same on October 8, 2020.

On Wednesday, the CBI told the High Court that no irregularity was committed by them, justifying the closure report filed by it earlier.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju stated that the CBI court’s order was not in conformity with the law.

A special court last week had asked the CBI to file cases against Shourie and four others with regard to the sale of public sector Indian Tourism Development Corporation’s Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel to a private firm around two decades ago.

The property was sold to Bharat Hotels Ltd for Rs 7.52 crore when Shourie was the Minister-in-charge of Divestment in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance Government at the Centre.

During a preliminary investigation by the CBI, the property was valued at Rs 252 crore, suggesting a loss of Rs 244 crore to the exchequer.

On Wednesday, Shourie’s counsels Pradeep Shah with Prashant Bhushan through video conferencing said there was neither the condition nor the urgency to summon the accused by arrest warrant and the CBI court erred in passing this order.

Also read: In Rajasthan, A Royal Rumble: Jai Singh Heiress Loses Support of Scindia CM

Mentioning about the other three accused who were granted bail by the court on Tuesday, Bhushan said, Though the petitioner’s case was identical, but required a different order in as much as petitioner was not even named in the FIR.”

He argued that the trial court erred in the invocation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Shourie also sought exemption from appearance in person in the CBI court for furnishing the bond and sureties, citing his age, ill-health and family conditions.

Admitting the arguments, Justice Dinesh Mehta converted the arrest warrant of Shourie and Kantilal Vikamsey into a bailable warrant.

However, it asked Shourie and Vikamsey to appear in the CBI court on any day by October 15, 2020, to furnish the bonds and sureties.

With this, all five accused in the case have been granted relief from arrest as ordered by the CBI court on September 15, 2020.

On Tuesday, the High Court court had stayed the arrest of former disinvestment secretary Pradip Baijal and two others- MD of Lazard India Limited, Ashish Guha and MD of Bharat Hotels Limited, Jyotsana Suri.

Staying their arrest, the HC had termed the CBI court’s decision ‘not justified’.

The HC also directed that the Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel should be transferred back to the company, a week after the lower court ordered its takeover by the State Government till the case is settled.

Warrant Issued Against Haryana Official for Not Replying to RTI Query

Last month, a study by civil society groups said that while the RTI Act empowers information commissions to impose penalties against officers who deny or delay information, this power is used sparingly.

New Delhi: Less than a month after former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur sought stringent punishment for officers who delay information under the Right to Information Act, the State Information Commission of Haryana issued a bailable warrant against an officer in Gurugram for not replying to a query on unauthorised colonies.

Taking a tough stand against the delay in providing information to RTI applicants, the SIC last month issued bailable warrants against the District Town Planner (enforcement) of Gurugram on a complaint by an applicant, Ramesh Yadav, who sought information on the no-objection certificates issued by the official concerned for registration of land and the action taken against mushrooming of illegal colonies.

The applicant alleged that the SPIO-cum-DTP (Enforcement) Ved Prakash Sehrawat issued around 250 NOCs in contravention of the law to facilitate coming up of unauthorised colonies. Yadav also claimed that in this way around 700 unauthorised colonies were allowed to come up in Gurugram.

Earlier, in August this year, the State Information Commission had directed Sehrawat to facilitate inspection of relevant records in the case at his office. But after Yadav complained to the commission via email on November 14 that he had not been provided with any information, the commission ordered the issuance of a bailable warrant against Sehrawat in the matter the following day.

The SIC order said Sehrawat “neither furnished any information to the appellant nor replied to the show cause notice” and asserted that “this shows the lacklustre attitude of SPIO”. Moreover, since Sehrawat also did not attend the commission hearings, it further noted that this “shows he has no regards for effective implementation of the RTI Act”.

Also read: Former SC Judge Seeks Punishment for Officers Who Delay Information Under RTI

It then posted the matter to March 11, 2020 while directing Sehrawat – who claimed that there was some miscommunication and that he had already furnished the reply to Yadav – to file his reply to the RTI application within two weeks.

Incidentally, last month, a ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2018-19’ prepared by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES) noted that commissions were usually “extremely reluctant to impose penalties on erring officials for violations of the law.” It stated that while the Act empowers information commissions to impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 on erring Public Information Officers (PIOs) for violations, they have been found to be imposing them sparingly.

The report said “penalty was imposed only in 4% of the cases in which it was potentially imposable,” it said. In such a scenario, the order for issuing a bailable warrant against an erring PIO has sent across a strong message on compliance with the RTI Act norms.

Incidentally, soon after this ‘Report Card’ was released, a public meeting on the implementation of the RTI Act was organised by SNS where Justice Lokur said the testimonies of RTI users highlighted the importance of access to information in people’s lives. He said when an ordinary person is at fault, the government files a case and puts them in jail. But when a government officer (wrongfully) stops someone’s pension or is at fault, similar action is usually lacking.

He then urged the chief information commissioner Sudhir Bhargava to ensure that if complaints are received against officers, some penalty under the law should be imposed so that they know that wrongful acts will not go unpunished. The action by Haryana SIC is in line with that instruction.