New Delhi: A Delhi court on Saturday put off till September 24 the hearing on the bail application of Gaganpreet Kaur, the main accused in the Delhi BMW fatal accident case, accepting the police plea that they were yet to seize her mobile phone and driving licence.

Judicial Magistrate Ankit Garg was told by investigators that they were not in favour of granting bail to her at this stage as the probe was still at a nascent stage.

Opposing Kaur’s plea, the police said that the mobile phone used by her to contact family members after the accident was a crucial piece of evidence.

“We have not yet recovered the mobile phone and driving licence of the accused,” said the prosecution lawyer.

The defence counsel informed the court that Kaur’s phone is with her husband and it will be handed over to the police by Saturday evening.

He claimed that Kaur’s driving licence was earlier given to investigators but if it is still not on record the family shall resubmit it to the police.

Kaur has been arrested in connection with the death of Navjot Singh, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, and serious injuries to his wife, Sandeep Kaur, in an accident on September 14 near Dhaula Kuan.

The fatal accident occurred around 1 P.M. on September 14, near the Delhi Cantt Metro Station. The victim couple was returning from Bangla Sahib Gurdwara on a motorcycle when they were hit by a BMW car, allegedly driven by Gaganpreet Kaur. Her husband, Parikshit, was seated in the passenger seat at the time of the crash.

In a parallel development, the court issued notice to the police on a separate application filed by the accused, requesting preservation of CCTV footage from the accident site.

On Thursday, the court indicated that there was no legal provision allowing sharing of CCTV footage with the accused in a criminal case.

After the accident, the police registered a case under various penal provisions, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and rash and negligent driving. The police is also probing possible attempts to tamper with evidence.

Mumbai: The Mahayuti government has found a unique way to avoid controversy over the appointment of Nashik’s guardian minister by deciding to appoint a ministerial committee with all the contenders to oversee the implementation of the Kumbh Mela to be organised there in 202728, with preparations beginning next year. ‘As per the order issued on Friday, the committee com- prises three ministers from the BJP and two each from the Shiv Sena and the NCP — led by Deputy Chief Ministers, Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, respectively.

BJP Minister Girish Mahajan, who is keen on the district guardian minister- ship, will head the committee along with the other aspirants – Chhagan Bhujbal, Dada Bhuse and Manikrao Kokate (who hails from Nashik). Interestingly, Mahajan belongs to Jalgaon, but the BJP is keen on appointing him to the coveted post purely for political reasons.

The other ministers are Uday Samant, Jaikumar Rawal and Shivendra Raje Bhosale. Formation of the committee has been facilitated as per the provisions in the Nashik-Trimbakeshwar Kumbh Mela Authority, legislation for which was passed in July.

The committee will super- vise the planning and implementation of the Nashik Kumbh, where lakhs of devo- tees are expected to visit for the holy dip in the Godavari river. The committee is expected to facilitate the development of infrastructure, water supply, accommodation and medical facilities.

The Shiv Sena took strong objection when Mahajans name was announced as the Nashik guardian minister in January. Shindes party also opposed Aditi Tatkare as the guardian minister for Raigad, leading to a stalemate that is yet to be resolved. The Sena ‘wants Dada Bhuse and Bharat Gogawale as guardian ministers for Nashik and Raigad.

In the meantime, the NCP has staked its claim on Nashik, which has two ministers from the district — Bhujbal and Kokate. However, the BJP is in no mood to give up its claim on Nashik in view of its religious and political importance and the impending local body elections.

Mumbai: The Maharashtra government on Friday told the Bombay High Court that the police clearance certificate of Fahim Ansari, acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case, was rejected as he remains under surveillance on suspicion of being associated with a banned terror organisation.

Ansari had sought the police clearance certificate to drive an autorickshaw for his livelihood.

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad asked the state under what law the certificate was denied, given that Ansari had been acquitted of the 26/11 charges.

Public prosecutor Mankhuwar Deshmukh submitted that as per guidelines issued in August 2014, Ansari was not eligible. “There is also a confidential report which states that Ansari is still under watch on suspicion of being a member of a banned terror outfit,” he added.

In its affidavit, the state pointed out that Ansari had been convicted and sentenced to 10 years in the 2008 Rampur CRPF camp grenade attack, which claimed the lives of seven personnel and one civilian.

It further said that although he was acquitted in the 26/11 case, the trial court had observed that he was associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Several other criminal cases were also registered against him, the state noted. A sealed confidential report was also submitted to the court.

As no lawyer appeared for Ansari, the court adjourned the hearing to Saturday.

Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed had been accused of aiding LeT in carrying out the November 26, 2008, Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. On May 6, 2010, a special court acquitted both for want of evidence — a decision later upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Only lone Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab was convicted for the 26/11 carnage.

However, Ansari was separately convicted in the Rampur case in Uttar Pradesh and served his 10-year sentence before being released in 2019. Challenging the police refusal, Ansari approached the High Court claiming the decision was “arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory” and violated his fundamental right to livelihood. His plea argued: “The petitioner is legally entitled to engage in gainful employment, free from any legal blemish or barriers.”