delhi high court
Photo: ANI
Expansion
The High Court said felling of trees should be the last resort in a city gasping for breath. The court restrained the Delhi Development Authority and others from felling trees on a plot located in Vasant Kunj. The court has also issued notice to the DDA and other parties seeking their response. Justice Jasmeet Singh said in the order that if any other alternative site is available, it must be seen.
The Court has restrained the Respondents from clearing the land and felling of trees on the plot comprised in Sector A Pockets B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi till the next date of hearing. The court has fixed the matter for hearing on July 3. The court was hearing a plea filed by All Resident Welfare Society, seeking to restrain Seelam Arpit Brand Technologies Pvt Ltd, DDA and others from going ahead with the proposed complex on the piece of land. The petition also prayed to shift the proposed campus to an alternate plot.
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases
Refusing to grant anticipatory bail to an accused involved in organized cyber crime, a Delhi court said anticipatory bail is an extraordinary measure and should be granted only in exceptional cases. Vacation judge Aparna Swamy dismissed Shivam Kumar’s plea and directed him to join the investigation.
In the present case, anticipatory bail is not fit to be granted, the judge said in the June 12 order. There are 600 victims in this case who were defrauded to the tune of Rs 4.47 crore. The cyber police of seven states issued notices for seizing the bank accounts of the company of the accused. The judge said, it being an economic offence, it should be dealt with strictly in the matter of bail. In order to take the matter to its logical end, it is necessary to have a detailed investigation, which is dependent on continuous questioning of the applicant/accused.
The accused, while seeking anticipatory bail, had claimed that he was only a director in the company and had no role in the crime. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution opposed this, arguing that the amount of Rs 14 lakh duped from the victims was yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy.