Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has reserved its order on a plea filed by Rita Devi, mother of Anuj Thapan—the accused in the firing outside actor Salman Khan’s residence who died by suicide in custody—seeking a CBI probe into his death, alleging foul play.

A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale also directed the State to show the relevant portion of the CCTV footage to Devi’s advocate after he raised doubts over the magisterial inquiry report, which ruled Thapan’s death a suicide.

In December last year, the HC had observed that the 18-year-old’s demise did not appear to be a custodial death. It also noted that the police had no apparent reason to harm him, as he could have been helpful in their investigation.

Thapan was found hanging in the toilet of the crime branch lock-up at Crawford Market on May 1, 2024. Police claimed he used a bedsheet to take the extreme step. A mandatory magisterial inquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted to the HC. The CID, which also investigated the case, submitted a separate report.

During the hearing on Wednesday, advocate Nishant Rana pointed out discrepancies between the magistrate’s and the CID’s reports. “Some facts are totally opposite in the reports,” he said.

However, State advocate Prajakta Shinde clarified that the CID report submitted on May 15, 2024, was only an interim report based on an Accidental Death Report and that the probe has since been concluded.

Rana, however, insisted there was a conspiracy to kill Thapan. He claimed Thapan had told his mother that police beat him with a belt and that he was seen with a knife borrowed from an inmate. However, the magisterial report stated he was seen entering the washroom with a rope.

“As per the magistrate’s report, he (Thapan) was seen carrying a rope when he went to the washroom. It is also said that he borrowed a knife from an inmate. Why would he go through the trouble of hanging himself? He could have simply cut his veins,” Rana argued.

The judges, however, reiterated that they had reviewed the CCTV footage and “found nothing.”

When Rana pointed out that the magistrate’s report did not mention Call Data Records (CDR), the bench questioned, “He died in custody. Where is the question of CDR?”

The court then closed the plea for orders.

On April 14, 2024, two motorcycle-borne men opened fire outside Galaxy Apartments in Bandra, where Khan resides with his family. The alleged shooters, Vicky Gupta and Sagar Pal, were later arrested in Gujarat. Thapan and an associate were apprehended in Punjab on April 26 for allegedly supplying firearms and ammunition for the shooting. Police claimed he had links to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi.

So far, six people have been arrested in connection with the case under the stringent MCOCA.

Chennai, Feb 12: A 43-year-old private school teacher was arrested on the charges of sexually assaulting a Class 9 boy in Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

The accused, identified as Sudhakar (43), was a Tamil teacher at the school.

He was arrested after a case was registered against him under three sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The incident came to light when the boy developed health complications.

Concerned about the boy’s condition, his parents enquired, and the child alleged that Sudhakar had sexually harassed him.

Due to an infection, the boy was admitted to Royapettah Government Hospital for treatment. Following a complaint by the parents, the K.K. Nagar police initially registered a case and launched an investigation.

The case was later transferred to the Saidapet All-Women Police Station.

Meanwhile, the school administration announced that Sudhakar had been dismissed.

It may be recalled that a few days before a 13-year-old girl from a government school in Bargur, Krishnagiri district, Tamil Nadu, had accused three of her teachers of rape.

The incident occurred in the first week of January and came to light only on February 3, when schoolteachers visited the girl’s home to investigate her prolonged absence from school.

Tamil Nadu opposition leader and AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) expressed shock over the incident.

In a social media post, he criticised the DMK government for “failing” to ensure students’ safety in government schools and called upon Chief Minister M. K. Stalin to take full responsibility for the incident.

BJP Tamil Nadu Chief K. Annamalai condemned the incident and said sexual assault on women and girls had become a horrifying reality in Tamil Nadu.

New Delhi, Feb 11: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to DGPs of states to take immediate action in lynching and mob violence cases in accordance with the directions of the apex court and added that the directions in the Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India case were binding on all authorities across India.

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.Vinod Chandran opined that sitting in the national Capital, it cannot monitor incidents in different areas of different states across the country.

“Sitting in Delhi, we cannot monitor incidents in different areas of the country and in our view such micromanagement would not be feasible,” said the Justice Gavai-led Bench.

It added that the directions laid down by the top court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, are binding on all authorities across the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.

In its 2018 judgment in the Poonawalla case, the Supreme Court had directed designation of nodal officer in each district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.

“The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned states shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads,” it had ordered.

In its order, the Justice Gavai-led Bench stated that an aggrieved person can always seek remedy in accordance with the law, clarifying that the apex court cannot lay down any uniform criteria for the grant of compensation to the victims of mob lynching incidents since the quantum of compensation ought to be decided on a case to case basis.

Further, the apex court refused to examine the validity of cow protection laws introduced in several states, suggesting the litigants to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

“It will be appropriate that persons who are aggrieved approach jurisdictional High Courts to challenge the vires of the legislations/notifications,” the SC said.

During the course of hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, submitted that mob lynching is a distinct offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and if there is any violation, the law will take its own course.

In an earlier hearing, the top court had pulled up the state governments of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar for not filing their counter-affidavits.

“We clarify that in the event counter affidavits are not filed by the above-mentioned states, the Chief Secretaries of the said states shall remain personally present in the court on the next date of hearing to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against them for non-compliance of the orders of the court,” it had said in an order passed on November 5, 2024.

Earlier in April last year, the apex court had granted six weeks to various state governments to file their reply detailing the action taken in cases of lynchings and mob violence.

“It was expected of the state governments to at least respond and give details as to what action has been taken in respect of the said instances (of lynchings and mob violence). We, therefore, grant six weeks’ time to all the state governments – who have not yet filed their affidavits – to file their counter-reply and give an explanation as to what action has been taken by the states in respect of incidents mentioned in the writ petition or interlocutory applications,” the SC had said.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Maharashtra governments. Later, all state governments were added as parties in the PIL on an application moved by Islamic clerics’ organisation Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind. The plea prayed for a minimum uniform compensation to be determined by the court that should be granted to the victims or their families in addition to the amount determined by the authorities.

“In most cases, minimal action of merely registering FIRs is the only thing that is done by the authorities which seems to be more of a formality than any genuine initiation of the criminal machinery,” the plea said.