National News
Can’t grant anticipatory bail merely because custodial interrogation not required: SC
The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required.
Criticising the high court order, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala said: “There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.”
It said the first and foremost thing that the court, hearing an anticipatory bail application, should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused, thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
It added that custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail, however, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
The complainant’s counsel submitted before the bench that the high court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the high court should be quashed and set aside.
The bench said: “In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
It noted the victim is traumatised to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.
As the accused’s counsel submitted that charge sheet has already been filed, the court said: “It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No 1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.”
“Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No 1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the high court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.”
Setting aside the high court order, the top court said the high court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest as the investigating officer deserves a free hand to take the probe to its logical conclusion.
National News
Mumbai: Multiple Courts, Including Bombay HC, Evacuated After Bomb Threat Triggers Security Alert

Mumbai: A panic broke out at the Bombay High Court on Thursday, December 18, after authorities received a bomb threat, prompting an immediate evacuation of the premises. Security across the area was tightened as a precautionary measure. bomb threats were also received at several magistrate courts, including Bandra, Andheri, and Esplanade.
The Bandra Metropolitan Court also received a bomb threat via email, triggering an immediate response from the Mumbai Police and the bomb squad.
Soon after the threat was received, security teams rushed to the court premises and carried out a thorough search. However, no suspicious object was found during the inspection. Mumbai Police have also launched an investigation to trace the source of the threatening email, identify the sender, and ascertain the motive behind it.
Similarly, in Nagpur, the District and Sessions Court received an email in the morning claiming that two RDX-based explosive devices would soon go off in the building. The email prompted the police to launch an immediate search of the court, which is located in the Civil Lines area. However, the threat turned out to be a hoax as nothing suspicious was found.
Earlier in September, the Azad Maidan police had registered an FIR against an unidentified person for allegedly sending a hoax email about a bomb threat to the Bombay High Court. The case was filed under Sections 353(1) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for statements causing public mischief.
According to police, the email claimed that a blast would occur inside the court premises, triggering panic just hours after a similar threat was reported in Delhi. The High Court suspended hearings for nearly two hours, and the entire building was evacuated as a precaution
Crime
Mumbai: Mazgaon Court Stenographer Held For Demanding ₹15 Lakh Bribe, Approaches Special ACB Court For Bail

Mumbai: The stenographer posted at court at Mazgaon, Chandrakant Vasudev, was arrested allegedly for demanding and accepting bribes allegedly on behalf of the Additional Sessions Judge, Civil Sessions Court, Court No. 14, Mazagon. Aejazuddin S. Kazi has again approached the special ACB court for bail. The plea is likely to be heard on Thursday.
Vasudev was arrested on November 10 for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 15 lakh in exchange for a favourable verdict in a land dispute case. The special court rejected his first bail plea on November 24. A second bail plea claims no need for further incarceration and investigation can proceed without detaining him.
The prosecution claims Vasudev told the agency that Kazi had instructed him to demand the bribe, and after accepting the amount, Kazi asked him to bring it to his residence. It allegedly started on September 09 when Vasudev told the complainant’s associate in the court washroom to “do something for Saheb (the Judge), and the order will be in your favour”. He later demanded Rs 10 lakh for himself and Rs 15 lakh for the judge at a café. After refusal, he threatened via WhatsApp.
National News
Ruckus in LS as Oppn demands VB-G Ram G Bill to be referred to Standing Committee or JPC

New Delhi, Dec 18: The Lok Sabha descended into pandemonium on Thursday as Union Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development Shivraj Singh Chouhan attempted to deliver the government’s reply on the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 (VB-G RAM-G Bill), amid relentless sloganeering and protests from the opposition benches.
Congress MP K.C. Venugopal urgently pressed Speaker Om Birla to refer the Bill — which proposes replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a framework guaranteeing 125 days of wage employment annually — to a Standing Committee or Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for thorough examination.
The Speaker rejected the plea, highlighting that the Bill had already been debated for over eight hours, extending late into the previous night.
Defying the uproar, Minister Chouhan pressed on with his speech, emphasising enhanced provisions under the new legislation.
“With a whopping allocation and more employment opportunities, we are creating provisions for fully developed (sampoorna viksit) villages — this is the Modi government’s objective,” he stated.
The Bill’s name itself reflects its guarantee of employment and improved livelihoods, he added, aligning it with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision.
Minister Chouhan portrayed the initiative as building a prosperous India, with plans for ideal villages equipped with all basic amenities, employment, better livelihoods, and facilities right at the village level, in line with the Viksit Bharat @2047 goal.
“PM Modi has envisioned a slew of amenities for self-reliant villages,” he asserted, undeterred by interruptions.
He also said that the Congress party had curtailed the budget from Rs 40,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore, “while we will spend more than Rs 95,000 crore under the new scheme”.
The Bill has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition for allegedly weakening MGNREGA’s demand-driven guarantees, shifting costs to states, and removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name — a move decried as an insult to the Father of the Nation. Supporters, however, counter that it modernises rural empowerment, boosts days from 100 to 125, and promotes convergence for infrastructure and saturation coverage.
-
Crime3 years agoClass 10 student jumps to death in Jaipur
-
Maharashtra1 year agoMumbai Local Train Update: Central Railway’s New Timetable Comes Into Effect; Check Full List Of Revised Timings & Stations
-
Maharashtra1 year agoMumbai To Go Toll-Free Tonight! Maharashtra Govt Announces Complete Toll Waiver For Light Motor Vehicles At All 5 Entry Points Of City
-
Maharashtra1 year agoFalse photo of Imtiaz Jaleel’s rally, exposing the fooling conspiracy
-
National News1 year agoMinistry of Railways rolls out Special Drive 4.0 with focus on digitisation, cleanliness, inclusiveness and grievance redressal
-
Maharashtra1 year agoMaharashtra Elections 2024: Mumbai Metro & BEST Services Extended Till Midnight On Voting Day
-
National News1 year agoJ&K: 4 Jawans Killed, 28 Injured After Bus Carrying BSF Personnel For Poll Duty Falls Into Gorge In Budgam; Terrifying Visuals Surface
-
Crime1 year agoBaba Siddique Murder: Mumbai Police Unable To Get Lawrence Bishnoi Custody Due To Home Ministry Order, Says Report
