“Allegations not substantiated for want of sufficient evidence”; “embellishment and exaggeration” in the chargesheet; a “belated, lethargic and lackadaisical” investigation; filing chargesheet “beyond period of limitation” — these are some of 68 murdered in Maliana, all accused acquitted 36 years later, residents ask: So who killed our families? the observations made by the fast track court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Samar Vishal in the last five months, as it discharged or acquitted AAP MLAs in 19 of 22 cases filed against them by the Delhi Police.
Two courts were set up in the first week of March, after the Supreme Court said cases involving sitting MPs and MLAs must be fast-tracked. The court of the In appeal, Rahul says was mistreated, sentenced to attract Read | Delhi fast track courts acquit, discharge AAP MLAs in 19 of 22 cases According to court documents examined by The Indian Express, while these 22 cases were registered by security agencies, AAP MLAs also faced court complaints filed by individuals, such as criminal defamation.
None of those has led to a conviction so far. A senior police officer said they will analyse the orders and see if they need to file Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani an appeal. Lawyers Mohammad Irshad and Rishikesh Yadav represented AAP. An analysis of the judgments indicate why an overwhelming majority of the cases ended in discharge and acquittal — from delays in filing the chargesheet to allegations that could not be proven in court.
The cases include: Amid back-to-back flops, cinema lovers weigh in on what Malayalam filmmakers should prioritise and AAP leader Manish Sisodia. (Source: Express photo by Prem Nath Pandey/File) Watch herd of deer prancing at Sanjay Gandhi National Park; count them if you can, says IFS officer State vs Manish Sisodia, Mukesh Hudda, Kumar Vishwas Prosecuted for allegedly committing an offence under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
The Delhi Police had, on October 6, 2013, registered an FIR against them, alleging that AAP had taken political mileage by pasting posters on the wall of a government school, thereby defacing it. The chargesheet was filed on March 30, 2015 — beyond the period of limitation — which means that a chargesheet has to be filed within the time prescribed under Elderly Sikh couple recreates old The court said the grounds mentioned by the IO for the delay were vague and showed negligence in filing the chargesheet.
The court said it was not a fit case to “condone the delay” in filing the chargesheet, and discharged all accused on April 24 this year. Read | Delhi: AAP hits out at chief secretary and Centre over CCTV project State vs AAP MLA Naresh Balyan and his associate Prosecuted for possessing illicit liquor, with the Crime Branch alleging that Sanjay Verma was a close associate of Naresh Balyan and worked as a conduit to stock Why did Suryakumar Yadav wear Sanju Samson's jersey in first ODI? illicit liquor and distribute it.
The case was registered on January 30, 2015, and the chargesheet was filed under the Delhi Excise Act. The court framed charges against Verma, stating that there was prima facie evidence against him. However, on April 9, the court discharged Balyan and said police filed the chargesheet against him on the basis of “presumption”, as there was no evidence to connect the illicit liquor in the godown to him.
The court said the charge seemed “groundless”. State vs AAP MLA Gulab Singh and others It was alleged that on March 24, 2014, the MLA and his supporters created a ruckus by “provoking” a mob in Dwarka with the body of a man who was murdered. The MLA and others were demanding that police bring the perpetrators to the spot. Singh was booked under IPC sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and ‘Award wapsi’: Parliamentary Committee Report doesn’t understand the artist’s conscience The chargesheet was filed on February 9, 2016.
But the court said there is no allegation that the accused had given any statement to incite any class conflict or hatred or enmity among different classes, and rejected this allegation on merits. The court also noted that the chargesheet was filed beyond the period of limitation, and discharged all accused on April 21. CBI vs Asim Ahmed Khan The CBI registered a case against Khan, the former food and supplies minister, on How should chronic heart diseases 'Bomb Cyclone' episode of 'And Just Like That' is high on fashion; check out who wore what State vs Manoj Kumar and others Police registered seven separate FIRs in August 2015 on the complaint of various salesmen at fair price shops, under the jurisdiction of Kalyanpuri police station.
They alleged that a man, who introduced himself as a PA of MLA Manoj Kumar, had statement of co-accused Deepak Sharma, which is not evidence as per the Indian Google, Microsoft, Anthropic & OpenAI collaborate for responsible use of AI: Here’s what it means Evidence Act. His PA faced trial, but was later acquitted in some of the cases as the complainants could not identify him in court citing “lapse of time”.
Why did Suryakumar Yadav wear Sanju Samson's jersey in first What luxuries did Kylian Mbappe miss by not going to Saudi Arabia’s Al Hilal? State vs Naresh Balyan Delhi Police registered an FIR on January 18, 2015, on the complaint of one of the members of the ‘Flying Squad’ which was supervising elections. His job was to monitor the expenditure of a public meeting conducted by AAP and videograph it.
However, he learnt that the meeting took place before the scheduled time. Balyan was the organiser and was made an accused under IPC Section 188, which pertains Anthropic & OpenAI responsible use of AI: Here’s what it means NASA to launch streaming to disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The court said it seemed that the police “casually” filed the chargesheet without observing the legal principles and complying with legal requirement.
“The offence alleged is violation of an order of a public servant, but no such order is placed on record along with the chargesheet,” the court said. It added that there were procedural lapses as cognizance of the chargehseet shouldn’t have been taken in the first place. Balyan was discharged on May 9. Sam Altman's Worldcoin is here: How to receive your free token 'Bomb Cyclone' episode of 'And Just Like That' is high on fashion; check out who Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot (File photo) magistrate of ‘Flying Squad’, Najafgarh, for commission of offence under IPC Watch herd of deer prancing at Sanjay Gandhi National Park; count them if you can, says IFS officer State vs Kailash Gahlot An FIR was registered on January 31, 2015, based on a complaint by an executive 171B (bribery during elections).
It was alleged that more than 100 AAP workers were served food at an institute in the area, and around 50 were watching AAP’s publicity campaign on TV. The court said there were no allegations against Gahlot — that he had given “gratification” to any person before the polls. “Eating food by party workers, having flags, posters and banners, etc during election does not amount to any offence or violation of Model Code of Conduct,” the court said.
It added that the allegations Elderly Sikh couple recreates old photo in with a stranger. Watch Passenger finds cockroach in food served on Vande Bharat Express train, were groundless and discharged Gahlot on April 3. Woman’s resume with 13 years of experience as homemaker goes viral State vs Arvind Kejriwal and others An FIR was registered in 2013 under IPC Section 188, Representation of People Act and Defacement Act.
The chargesheet was filed on January 2015 — after a year and 94 days, beyond the period of limitation. Police had booked them for alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct, after a poster of Kejriwal was found pasted on the walls of two houses. US professor reveals how he accidentally walked into ‘Oppenheimer’s set The court said the IO as well as the prosecution could not explain the delay in filing the chargesheet.
“The chargesheet is conspicuously silent on the reasons which can Tata to get state’s first Udyog Ratna Award: State industries minister Uday Samant be said to have prevented the police to file the chargesheet within time,” the court said, declining to take cognizance of the chargesheet. Ajit Pawar advising his ‘old uncle’ to retire was in poor taste: Uddhav AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan. (Source: File Photo) forward-looking surveys for pvt capex: House panel State vs Amanatullah Khan and others A case was registered in 2010 against Khan for assaulting and obstructing a public servant during a rescue operation of child labourers in Jamia Nagar in 2010.
In Google should share apps’ origin, developers’ identity with Centre: House panel 2015, Delhi Police added kidnapping charges against Khan, and filed the panel questions ministry over chargesheet in 2016. The court said police filed a “well-choreographed” chargesheet and that the delay in results investigation has been done in a “belated, lethargic and lackadaisical” manner over a prolonged period of time.
On the merits of the case, the court said that as per the complaint and the statement of the witnesses to police, the rescue team was only obstructed from carrying out the operation, and there was no allegation of “assault”. The court also noted that since the maximum punishment in all the offences, except kidnapping, is two years, the limitation period for filing the chargesheet becomes three years.
In this case, the chargesheet was filed in 2016. The court said the case was barred by the “law of limitation”. On allegations of kidnapping, the court said it was added belatedly to cover the limitation period. Khan was discharged on May 3. State vs Bandana Kumari Two separate FIRs were registered for offence under sections of the Representation of People Act, Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act and the Press and Registration of Books Act for putting up hoardings in Shalimar Bagh in November 2013.
The chargesheet was filed in March 2014. The court said there is no evidence that the accused had got the hoardings printed or published. “In cases like the present one, it is difficult to convict a person unless and until that person is seen affixing the hoarding/banner, or unless there is an eyewitness to such affixation” the court said. Kumari was acquitted in both cases on Read | Sonia Gandhi leads Congress protest against Rafale deal, CPI and AAP State vs Bandana Kumari, Raju Dhingan, Manoj Kumar and others An FIR was registered in October 2014 by expelled party leader Vinod Kumar Binny against three AAP MLAs and others for commission of offence under IPC sections 341, 500, 34, which provide punishment for wrongful restraint and defamation.
The complainant alleged that AAP leaders, along with other “paid workers”, protested outside his residence; hurled “abusive” and “defamatory” slogans; and “wrongfully restrained” him for a few hours. The court said it cannot act as a “mouthpiece” of the prosecution, but has to consider “broad possibilities” of the case. The court pulled up the police for registering an FIR in non-cognizable defamation under IPC Section 500.
The judge also questioned the cognizance taken by another court as the chargesheet was filed after “two years, 11 months and 25 days beyond the limitation period”. All three were discharged on May. State vs Devinder Sehrawat He was prosecuted on the complaint of head constable Ram Avtar from Palam police station, filed in October 2013, for violation of provisions of Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The chargesheet was filed in March, 2014. The court said the pamphlets were of the accused, Sehrawat, with his photographs, his party symbol and for the promotion of his election. “He was found in possession of these pamphlets, canvassing for his election and, therefore, the only natural presumption will be that the pamphlets were printed/published by him and no other,” the court said.
He was convicted. State vs Sahi Ram Pehalwan Delhi Live News woman’s body near dead, kills himself with same gun to AAP counte... Day after G20 police drill, CP cautions: Need to be invisible, not Delhi Police had registered a case against Sahi Ram for voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint in September 2016. It was alleged that the MLA had threatened an MCD supervisor and asked him to stop construction of a road in Okhla Industrial Area.
The MLA was also accused of assaulting the nephew of a local resident. The court convicted the accused, stating that the “offences were proved” against him. Aaam Aadmi Party