Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Tanmay Nivedita and Kalyani Badola, individuals from NGO Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan, were held in custody on July 10 for their alleged offense while helping and supporting a Bihar gang-rape victim in court.
The Supreme Court on August 4, 2020, passed an order for the quick release of the two social workers held in under the order of the Araria District Court in Bihar while delivering help to gang-rape victim in court.
The petitioners were represented to by Advocate Vrinda Grover before the Supreme Court, pleadings were heard by the three- Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari that the bail plea was filed under "remarkable conditions due to COVID-19".
While giving notification to the State of Bihar and coordinating the prompt arrival of the two social workers on an individual obligation of Rs 10,000, the Court orally saw that
“the order by which the petitioners were sent into custody was impermissible in law.”
-Supreme Court order
After the gang-rape, the survivor had taken the assistance of the two workers for raising a protest. At the point when her statement was being filed under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the magistrate, the victim demanded that her statement be perused out to her. After a warmed trade, the lower court requested for the person in question and the two social-workers to be arrested for "the scorn of courts and disturbing court procedures."
After public outrage at the episode, the plea expresses that the survivor was discharged on July 17. In any case, the "detainment" of the two social workers despite everything proceeded.
The writ petition argued challenging the order passed by the Araria District Court was drafted by Advocates Ratna Appnender and Soutik Banerjee and was filed through Advocate on Record Liz Mathew.
The plea submitted mentions that the FIR against the person in question and the social workers enrolled in Araria Mahila Thana isn't viable in law, as there is a legal bar against police researching criminal disdain of court. It states that
"The inclusion of provisions from The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in the FIR reveal the non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of the authority which unfortunately is writ large over the entire proceedings against the Petitioners. Further, in grave violation of Sec. 228A IPC, the rape survivor’s identifying details, including her father’s name and full address were made known to and reported by the local press, thereby breaching her fundamental right to dignity and privacy."
-The writ petition reads
The plea further asserts that the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Araria had tragically, confounded the survivor's distressed, damaged perspective and saw equivalent to an individual insult and remanded her and the Petitioners.
86540
103860
630
114
59824