There is no discussion like Tablighi Jamaat, but there is punishment: Punishment begins in lockdown violation case, Rs 2100 fine imposed in Bihar

Aurangabad court punished the shopkeeper.
– Photo: Amar Ujala

In 2020, 17 members of Tabligi Jamaat were imprisoned for the duration of the court and fined two and a half thousand each for lockdown violation, then there was discussion across the country. Now, almost two and a half years later, sentencing in the rest of the lockdown violation cases has started in a way. A court in Bihar’s Aurangabad has punished a shopkeeper for violating the lockdown imposed in 2020 due to the global pandemic coronavirus. The court imposed a fine of Rs 2100 on the shopkeeper as punishment. Along with this, a debate has started that in all the cases of that era, now punishment can be given on this basis.

FIR was registered in the case of opening the shop
The court of First Class Judicial Magistrate Neha Dayal of Aurangabad Civil Court convicted the only accused in the case while hearing in Rafiganj police station case number 90/20 on Tuesday. Advocate Satish Kumar Snehi said that Rajeev Ranjan, the then police station chief of Rafiganj, the informant of the case, had alleged in the FIR that Ghulam Sarwar, a resident of Shera Bigha, had opened the shop in violation of the 2020 lockdown. An FIR was registered regarding this, arresting the shopkeeper and sealing the shop. In the same case, the First Class Judicial Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs 2100, which has been deposited by the accused in Aurangabad Nazarat Aurangabad.

Now decision will come in remaining pending cases also
During the lockdown in the state, several violations had come to the fore and an FIR was lodged in this. In most of the cases where the FIR has been registered, the final report is declared pending for hearing in the court. According to Patna High Court advocate Kishor Kunal, on the basis of the Aurangabad case, the decision on the remaining pending cases can also be given soon. The Tabdigi Jamaat case was different from that point of view, so it was not possible to decide the rest of the cases on that basis. The Aurangabad case can become the basis.

Detailed

In 2020, 17 members of Tabligi Jamaat were imprisoned for the duration of the court and fined two and a half thousand each for lockdown violation, then there was discussion across the country. Now, almost two and a half years later, sentencing in the rest of the lockdown violation cases has started in a way. A court in Bihar’s Aurangabad has punished a shopkeeper for violating the lockdown imposed in 2020 due to the global pandemic coronavirus. The court imposed a fine of Rs 2100 on the shopkeeper as punishment. Along with this, a debate has started that in all the cases of that era, now punishment can be given on this basis.

FIR was registered in the case of opening the shop

The court of First Class Judicial Magistrate Neha Dayal of Aurangabad Civil Court convicted the only accused in the case while hearing in Rafiganj police station case number 90/20 on Tuesday. Advocate Satish Kumar Snehi said that Rajeev Ranjan, the then police station chief of Rafiganj, the informant of the case, had alleged in the FIR that Ghulam Sarwar, a resident of Shera Bigha, had opened the shop in violation of the 2020 lockdown. An FIR was registered regarding this, arresting the shopkeeper and sealing the shop. In the same case, the First Class Judicial Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs 2100, which has been deposited by the accused in Aurangabad Nazarat Aurangabad.

Now decision will come in remaining pending cases also

During the lockdown in the state, several violations had come to the fore and an FIR was lodged in this. In most of the cases where the FIR has been registered, the final report is declared pending for hearing in the court. According to Patna High Court advocate Kishor Kunal, on the basis of the Aurangabad case, the decision on the remaining pending cases can also be given soon. The Tabdigi Jamaat case was different from that point of view, so it was not possible to decide the rest of the cases on that basis. The Aurangabad case can become the basis.