On the basis of an urgent mention by additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud consented to list the agency’s appeal on August 25.

The CBI challenged the parole granted to the former union minister on April 22, 2022, by the Jharkhand high court. During his time as Bihar’s chief minister, Lalu Yadav was convicted in five cases involving the illicit withdrawal of funds from state treasuries in Deoghar, Dumka, Chaibasa, and Doranda. The CBI’s petition has been joined with another appeal lodged by the Jharkhand government in April 2021 against the release on bail of the former chief minister.

The RJD was eager to criticise the CBI’s decision to request an early court hearing. Tejashwa Yadav, the deputy chief minister of Bihar and son of Lalu, stated that this was anticipated of the agency and that such efforts by the investigation agency will continue until the elections.

“Their greatest dread stems from Bihar, which explains why these events are occurring. It will persist until the elections…We have no fear. We are aware of our next steps. “We will fight and win,” Tejashwi Yadav declared.

The 75-year-old RJD leader was granted parole due to his poor health.

In April of last year, the Jharkhand government appealed an earlier order of parole granted to Lalu Yadav in April of 2021 to the nation’s highest court, where the agency’s petition is currently pending.

The 950 billion fodder scam involved substantial disbursements from state treasuries based on counterfeit bills in 1997, when Lalu was chief minister of the state and held the finance portfolio.

ALSO READ:Poor getting obliterated’: Vegetable vendor from viral video tells Rahul Gandhi during luncheon meet.

In its appeal, the CBI asserted that the high court erred in concluding that Lalu had served half of his sentence. According to him, Lalu’s sentences were to run consecutively, one after the other, resulting in a 14-year sentence. According to the CBI’s filing, Lalu had served approximately one year in prison at the time he was granted parole.

The post CBI petitions Supreme Court to terminate Lalu Yadav’s bail, Aug. 25 hearing. appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The detained railway employees have been identified as senior section engineer Arun Kumar Mahanta, section engineer Mohammad Amir Khan, and technician Pappu Kumar. The central investigation agency stated that the suspects were arrested under sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for “their actions which led to the incident,” but did not specify what those actions were.

After a month-long inquiry, the CBI has now added the two stringent sections pertaining to culpable homicide and destruction of evidence to its case. In its first information report (FIR) filed last month, which was a re-registration of the Odisha police case, the agency did not invoke these sections.

The detention occurred days after the Commissioner of Railways Safety (CRS) reported the Balasore accident to the railway board on Wednesday. The investigation revealed that the Coromandel Express was on a collision trajectory with a freight train on another track as a result of faulty signaling caused by two botched repair jobs, one in 2018 and one hours before the accident.

“The rear-end collision (of Coromandel Express) was caused by lapses in the signalling-circuit-alteration performed… in the past and during the execution of signalling work related to replacement of electric lifting barrier for level crossing gate number 94 at the station,” according to a report seen by media.

Also read this:Massive Fire Engulfs 3 Coaches Of Falaknuma Express. Passengers Safe, No Casualties Reported

The Railways did not release the CRS report on the triple train tragedy in Balasore to prevent any “influence or interference” with the CBI’s ongoing investigation, according to officials familiar with the situation.

The post CBI arrests three railways officials in Balasore train crash probe appeared first on Republic Aeon.

In the Land for Job scam case, the chargesheet has been filed against former Union Minister of Railways Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Chief Minister of Bihar Rabri Devi, Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, and several others.

CBI, via its Special Public Prosecutor Advocate DP Singh, notified the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi that a new chargesheet has been submitted in the case, despite the fact that a chargesheet had already been filed, because the alleged crime was committed using a different modus operandi.

The court was also informed that sanctions against Lalu and three others are forthcoming.

Lalu Prasad Yadav is accused of giving railway employment to candidates or their relatives in exchange for free or discounted plots of land. The investigation began two years ago, but the case was not registered until last year.

In May 2022, the CBI filed a new case against him and his family members, accusing them of accepting land from aspirants in exchange for railway employment from 2008 to 2009, when he was the Union railway minister in the UPA government.

During this period, Lalu Prasad Yadav was released on bail in a case involving a fodder scam for which he had been convicted by a special court.

What is the Land for Job scam case?

During the years 2004-2009, Lalu Prasad Yadav allegedly received monetary benefits in the form of the transfer of immovable property into the names of his family members in exchange for the appointment of’substitutes’ to Group D posts in various railway zones, according to the CBI.

The candidates were hired within three days of their application in “excessive haste” by railroad officials. Later, when the “individuals themselves or their family members transferred their land”, they were also regularized.

A number of Patna residents or their family members purportedly sold or donated their land in the state capital to Lalu Prasad’s family members and a private company controlled by the former chief minister’s family.

It was alleged that Rabri Devi and her daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav made the transfers using deeds. The CBI asserted that no advertisement or public notice was issued for these appointments, despite the fact that Patna residents were appointed as substitutes in Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur, and Hajipur.

Also read this:Monsoon tracker: IMD predicts extremely heavy rainfall in these states today.

In continuation of this modus operandi, approximately 1,05,292 square feet of immovable properties located in Patna were acquired by Yadav and his family members via five sales deeds and two gift deeds, with cash payments made to the vendor in the majority of land transfers, according to the CBI.

The post Lalu Prasad, Tejashwi Yadav named accused in land-for-job scam chargesheet appeared first on Republic Aeon.

The Delhi High Court denied parole to the AAP leader in the Delhi excise policy-related CBI case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stated, “Allegations against Sisodia are extremely serious, and the possibility of witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out.”

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma denied parole to Manish Sisodia, citing the severity of the allegations against the AAP leader. The apprehension of Sisodia occurred on February 26, 2023.

While announcing its decision on Sisodia’s parole application, the Delhi High Court noted that the AAP leader is a powerful individual, and it cannot be ruled out that witnesses could be influenced if he is granted bail.

The CBI detained Sisodia on suspicion of corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-abandoned Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. Multiple times prior to his detention, Sisodia was questioned by the central investigation agency.

ALSO READ :Kejriwal embraces hospitalized Satyendar Jain: “Met the brave man…the hero.”

A trial court determined that Sisodia was “obviously the mastermind” behind the “scam.”

Manish Sisodia contested the order of a trial court, which stated that he had played the “most important and vital role” in the criminal conspiracy involving the alleged payment of Rs 90-100 crore in advance kickbacks intended for him and his colleagues in the Delhi government.

The AAP leader is also detained in a case involving money laundering.

The post HC Dismisses Manish Sisodia’s Bail Plea, Says ‘Possibility Of Witnesses Being Influenced Can’t Be Ruled Out’ appeared first on Republic Aeon.

Jain, who had been incarcerated in Tihar Jail since his apprehension by the ED in May of last year in a money laundering case, was admitted to the hospital on Thursday after collapsing in prison due to dizziness. Due to breathing difficulties, he was initially confined to the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital and then transferred to the Lok Nayak Hospital.

The Supreme Court granted the former minister of Delhi a six-week interim parole on medical grounds on Friday. He suffered a blood clot due to a head injury, but his condition is stable, according to news agency reports citing individuals with knowledge of the situation.

Kejriwal tweeted several images from the trip with the caption, “Met the brave man…..the hero..”

Met the brave man…..the hero.. pic.twitter.com/d5gzKoDud9

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) May 28, 2023

A four-person medical council has been established for Jain’s care. In addition to critical care specialists, the council includes senior physicians from LNJP Hospital and neurologists from GB Pant Hospital, as reported by PTI.

ALSO READ :Jain’s six-week medical bail:

Satyendar Jain was detained on 30 May 2022 by Enforcement Directorate under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and is currently in Judicial Custody. The ED case is founded on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint alleging that between February 14, 2015 and May 31, 2017, Satyender Jain acquired movable properties in the names of various individuals that he could not adequately account for.

The post Kejriwal embraces hospitalized Satyendar Jain: “Met the brave man…the hero.” appeared first on Republic Aeon.

Please, Sameer Wankhede, said SRK. Please show me and my family clemency.

Sameer Wankhede has been accused of several irregularities in a vigilance probe of the NCB. There has been no match between his income and his expenses and he underreported his foreign travel expenses; made a doubtful deal over a valuable watch; and demanded ₹25 crore bribe from Shah Rukh Khan to not press charges against Aryan Khan. The bribe was made through KP Gosavi, who was given a free hand in the Aryan Khan case and was made to look like an NCB insider.

Sameer Wankhede refuted the allegations and stated that the CBI filed a FIR against him because he had submitted a complaint against NCB deputy director Gyaneshwar Singh for making casteist remarks.

ALSO READ :Alia Bhatt gets mistaken for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan by paps at Met Gala 2023

Here are the latest updates on the Sameer Wankhede case:

While Sameer Wankhede is accused of falsely implicating Aryan Khan, Wankhede said Aryan Khan’s name was there in the draft complaint but was dropped from the final one.

2. The draft complaint was replaced by another draft complaint prepared from outside, Wankhede alleged.

3. Wankhede said in dropping Aryan Khan’s name, Gyaneshwar Singh played a major role.

4. In the purported chats between Wankhede and SRK, as produced by Wankhede in the court, there was no mention of the bribe.

5. “Please show some kindness my man. Love srk I can only plead and beg you as a father. Please,” Shah Rukh Khan wrote to Wankhede while praising his uprightness.

6. In a chat, Wankhede told Shah Rukh Khan that he wanted to be kind to “the child (Aryan Khan) and look at him in a reformatory way” but the effort was maligned by vested interest people.

7.SRK said Aryan was not part of that and his role is minuscule in it. “All he needs is reformation,” SRK said.

The post After SRK conversation leak, Sameer Wankhede faces CBI interrogation today. appeared first on Republic Aeon.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, ordered on Friday at 12:15 p.m. that the acting chief justice of the high court transfer the cases involving alleged irregularities in the recruitment by the West Bengal School Service Commission from justice Gangopadhyay to another judge based on a report from the registrar general of the high court.

The bench, which also included justice PS Narasimha, stated that the order was issued in response to a video interview of justice Gangopadhyay on the pending proceedings before him, as well as certain statements he made about TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, against whom the judge also issued a judicial order.

Taking into account the authenticated transcript of the television interview and a note submitted by justice Gangopadhyay to the registrar general of the high court, the bench ordered that the pending proceedings in the case be reassigned to another judge of the high court.

In an interview with ABP Ananda that aired last September, Justice Gangopadhyay defended his orders for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation by stating that there appeared to be “rampant corruption” in the recruitment of teachers.

The high court judge also stated that Banerjee could be sentenced to three months in prison for alleging that a portion of the judiciary was in league with the opposition BJP. Even if the Supreme Court criticizes him and he is removed from the judiciary, he will stand by his actions because “corruption has destroyed India,” the judge said, perhaps cognizant that his conduct would be frowned upon by the highest court.

Banerjee presented the television interview and its transcript to the Supreme Court bench on Monday, citing a high court judge’s order directing the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate to investigate the TMC leader in connection with the recruiting scam case.

ALSO READ :Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will welcome 150 top contributors for 2024 re-election.

However, hours after the Supreme Court’s order was issued on Friday, justice Gangopadhyay instituted a suo moto proceeding, requesting that the official transcript of the interview be presented to him by the Supreme Court’s secretary general, for which he said he would wait until 12:15 a.m. in his chamber.

“For the sake of transparency, I order the Secretary General of the Honourable Supreme Court of India to produce before me the report and the official translation of the interview I gave to the media, as well as the original affidavit of the Registrar General of this Court, by tonight at 12 a.m. This is required for the sake of openness,” stated his directive.

In response to Justice Gangopadhyay’s order, the Supreme Court initiated a proceeding of its own volition to halt the implementation of his order. At 8 p.m., a special panel comprised of justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli ruled that “judicial discipline” required justice Gangopadhyay to refrain from issuing the challenged order. The court suspended his order requesting a report from the secretary general and affirmed this directive.

Justice Gangopadhyay stated that he was unfazed by the Supreme Court’s decision and that he would not resign or compromise on the issue of corruption. “However, I believe the remaining cases (involving the job scam) will be taken away from me on the same basis,” he said.

“There is a concept known as discipline. The order of the Supreme Court must be implemented. This will be heard by a different judge. The duration of the proceedings may be extended from seven months to seven years. Some citizens may experience disappointment, but they must maintain their faith,” he added.

The CJI-led bench noted on April 24 that judges should not give interviews to news outlets on pending matters, requesting that the registrar of the high court confirm with justice Gangopadhyay whether he gave the contested interview and clarify his statements as recorded in the video.

The Supreme Court’s decision to reassign the case to a different bench sparked significant reactions in Bengal.

Sukanta Majumdar, the state president of the BJP, described Justice Gangopadhyay as a crusader against corruption. Majumdar stated, “The Supreme Court’s decision is regrettable. It will disappoint the citizens of Bengal, for whom Justice Gangopadhyay was an anti-corruption crusader. His decisions gave common people hope. The Supreme Court has the authority to render any decision. We cannot dispute it. However, the TMC has no reason to celebrate, as the cases will continue and its leaders will be incarcerated.”

According to former Supreme Court justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, a high court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Therefore, the order’s essence should not be misconstrued. In consideration of the television interview, it was approved.”

Banerjee, who submitted the petition to the Supreme Court, stated, “We hold the utmost regard for both the high court and the Supreme Court. The perpetrators of this corruption must be punished. The CBI and ED are conducting investigations. However, we anticipate that courts will only mandate federal agency investigations in Bengal in exceptional circumstances.”

The post Three orders in one day in Calcutta HC judge legal drama appeared first on Republic Aeon.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, took exception to the video interview of justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who has issued at least ten orders directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate irregularities in the recruitment by the West Bengal School Service Commission.

“Judges have no authority to grant interviews in pending cases. And if they do, they will be unable to hear the case…They have no right to take part in the proceeding. This was stated by the bench, which also included justice PS Narasimha, while requesting a report from the registrar general of the Calcutta high court by April 28.

The bench added that it may ask the chief justice of the high court to assign the case to a new bench if the authenticity of the interview and transcript is confirmed. “We will not interfere with the investigation or issue a prohibition against an agency investigating the matter. “However, if a judge expresses an opinion about the petitioner during a television debate, he cannot hear the case,” it stated. “The chief justice must then appoint a new bench.”

ALSO READ : Virat Kohli embraces Anushka Sharma, plays badminton, and takes photographs with fans at event.

In its order, the bench requested that the registrar confirm with Justice Gangopadhyay whether or not he gave an interview to the Bengali television news channel ABP Ananda and elucidate his statements as captured in the video.

“We want to know whether or not the learned judge participated in the interview. This is something from a television video that cannot be misunderstood. We do not discuss what was said or observed in court, but rather television interviews,” the judge said as he scheduled a hearing for Friday.

In an interview with ABP Ananda that aired last September, Justice Gangopdhyay defended his orders for a CBI investigation by stating that there appeared to be “rampant corruption” in the recruitment process for teachers.

In addition, the high court judge stated that Trinamool Congress general secretary Abhishek Banerjee could be sentenced to three months in prison for claiming that a portion of the judiciary was in league with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Even if the Supreme Court criticizes him and he is removed from the judiciary, he will stand by his actions because “corruption has destroyed India,” the judge said, perhaps cognizant that his conduct would be frowned upon by the highest court.

Banerjee presented the television interview and its transcript to the Supreme Court bench on Monday, citing a high court judge’s order directing the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate to investigate the TMC leader in connection with the recruiting scam case.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan complained that a seated judge cannot give an interview about a pending case and then issue an order against a political figure whom he has also criticized in the interview. Singhvi termed the behavior of Justice Gangopadhyay “unprecedented” and requested contempt proceedings.

After Singhvi drew the CJI’s attention to the television interview and transcript, the bench was inclined to pursue the matter. Initially, the bench observed that it may not be appropriate for the apex court to take notice of certain statements made by a judge during proceedings before his court.

“The question is whether a judge who has made such statements about a political figure should be permitted to take part in the proceedings. “There must be a procedure,” stated the bench.

The court was hearing Banerjee’s petition challenging Justice Gangopadhyay’s order directing the CBI and ED to interrogate him in relation to the bribe-for-job scandal in the West Bengal school education department. The bench stayed the high court order against the TMC MP until April 24 last week. The temporary relief will endure until the next hearing date.

The post Judges have no business interviewing on pending cases, declares Supreme Court. appeared first on Republic Aeon.

Saha is a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the Burwan Constituency.

His detention occurred at his Burwan, Murshidabad district, residence.

During the CBI search on Sunday evening, the TMC MLA’s mobile phone was fished out of a pond next to his residence. After removing all water from the reservoir, the agency retrieved the phone.

In its ongoing investigation into the alleged West Bengal teacher recruitment scam, the CBI conducted investigations at six locations, including Saha’s office, on April 14.

The CBI conducted inspections at the Birbhum, Murshidabad, and Kolkata locations of Saha.

The case was filed at the direction of the Calcutta High Court.

In the recruitment process for the first West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) 2016 for classes 9 and 10, it was alleged that the accused acted as a conduit to collect money from applicants by promising them positions as teachers in the education department.

Several incriminating documents, including those pertaining to the recruitment of primary and secondary school teachers, as well as documents containing a list of candidates and amounts mentioned against them, were recovered during the investigations.

After detailed interrogation by CBI officials, he was arrested.

Also read this:A 3-story building collapsed in tagore garden in delhi

After Partha Chatterjee and Manik Bhattacharya, Saha is the third TMC legislator to be detained by the CBI as part of its investigation into the matter.

The post Bengal teacher recruitment scam: CBI arrested TMC MLA Jiban Krishna Saha appeared first on Republic Aeon.

Jain had filed an application on April 10 seeking the transfer of two cases filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge, alleging prejudice on the part of special judge Vikas Dhull.

District and sessions judge Vinay Kumar Gupta notified ED of the application and set May 4 as the hearing date. The court, however, denied the motion to suspend Vikas Dhull’s money laundering case proceedings.

Jain had filed an application on April 10 seeking the transfer of two cases filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged corruption and money laundering to another judge, alleging prejudice against special judge Vikas Dhull.

Judge Vikas Dhull is currently hearing both cases.

Previously, Dhull denied Jain’s parole application, stating that “applicant/accused Satyendar Kumar Jain is prima facie guilty of money laundering in excess of Rs. 1 crore.”

Attorney N. K. Matta, representing ED, asked the court to set the matter for May 4, as Jain’s application seeking transfer of the CBI case to a different judge is also set for May 4, and he would submit his response by then.

Earlier, ED submitted a request to transfer the case to a different magistrate. The case had been reassigned from special judge Geetanjli Goel to special judge Vikas Dhull by the chief district and sessions judge.

Jain then challenged the aforementioned order before the Delhi high court, which upheld the transfer order. The decree of the high court was later challenged before the Supreme Court, but Jain withdrew his challenge.

In 2017, the CBI lodged a first information report (FIR) against Jain for having disproportionate assets. On the basis of the CBI’s FIR, the ED filed a case against Jain and accused him of laundering money through four companies allegedly affiliated to him and in which he held shares while amassing a disproportionate income.

According to ED, Jain transferred money to Kolkata through the Hawala channel and received it back in the form of accommodation entries from fictitious companies, despite being unable to demonstrate the source of the money received.

Jain was detained by ED on May 30 of last year. He is presently incarcerated in Tihar.

The Delhi high court denied bail to Jain and two other co-defendants in the money laundering case last week, citing their failure to meet and satisfy the two conditions specified for bail under the PMLA.

Also read this:Bathinda Military Station firing: Terror angle unlikely, say police sources

The court denied Jain’s parole request in a 2017 money laundering case on the grounds that he is a “powerful individual” who could “possibly tamper with the evidence.”

The post District Judge seeks ED response on Satyendar Jain’s plea seeking transfer of his case to another Judge appeared first on Republic Aeon.