Live
- Only 6 minutes’ role in 222 days at Parliament
- CM Kejriwal, K Kavitha’s judicial custody extended in money laundering case till May 7
- Women BJD leaders Raseswari, Simarani quit party
- BJP overlooked TG projects in Parliament: Manne Srinivas
- Nothing Phone 3 with Model Number A015 May Launch in July
- Allari Naresh’s ‘Aa Okkati Adakku’ trailer promises hilarious family entertainment
- Hanuman Jayanthi special: Prasanth Varma unveils new poster of ‘Jai Hanuman’
- Chiranjeevi’s ‘Vishwambhara’ sets the bar high with massive interval stunt sequence
- State-wide bandh by BJP
- Pawan Kalyan Files Nomination for Pithapuram, says NDA will clinch victory
Allahabad HC questions personal bonds sought from farmers
The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the district administration in Uttar Pradesh's Sitapur on the "exorbitant"
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the district administration in Uttar Pradesh's Sitapur on the "exorbitant" amount of personal bonds and sureties sought from farmers, to prevent them from participating in the ongoing farm protests.
A division bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajeev Singh sought the reply on a PIL plea filed by Lucknow-based social activist Arundhati Dhuru.
Dhuru said in the petition that Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) in various districts of the state, including Sitapur, had issued notices to thousands of farmers under Section 111 of the CrPC. The farmers were informed that the police suspected that they may get involved in the ongoing farmer's protest and commit a breach of peace.
Dhuru said that several orders were passed on December 19 by SDMs of the different areas of the district, issuing notices to farmers, including women, calling them to furnish personal bonds of Rs 50,000 to Rs 10 lakh and two sureties in the like amount, on the apprehension that he or she would violate the law and order in the light of the ensuing farmers protest in the district.
The court has asked the administration under what circumstances farmers were asked to furnish such "exorbitant" amount of personal bond and two sureties. The matter would be heard on February 2.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that notices were not only baseless but also took away the fundamental rights of a person, as farmers were not allowed to come out of their houses.
