Live
- Congress tied hands of our soldiers, we gave them full freedom to retaliate: PM Modi
- Big B on being honoured with Mangeshkar Award: ‘Abhaar aur mera param saubhagya’
- Fashion Entrepreneur Fund opens up for pre registrations
- ICEA shares blueprint for India to become a global leader in chip value chain
- Meera Deosthale describes marriage as a ‘beautiful union yet huge responsibility’
- 1 in 4 Indians came across political content that turned out to be deepfake: Report
- Summer diet tips for mom-to-be to stay hydrated and healthy
- Rajender Rao Congress candidate for Karimnagar
- How stress can affect you
- Empowering individuals with knowledge about disease
CBI’s fresh FIR is flawed, Godman tells HC
Selfstyled preacher Daati Maharaj, accused in a sexual assault case, told the Delhi High Court on Friday that the CBI has lodged a fresh FIR in the matter against followed norms
New Delhi: Self-styled preacher Daati Maharaj, accused in a sexual assault case, told the Delhi High Court on Friday that the CBI has lodged a fresh FIR in the matter against followed norms.
His lawyers made the submission before a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao, while seeking review of the high court's October 3 order transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from the Delhi Police's Crime Branch.
Delhi Police, represented by additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose, told the bench that, its probe into the case was not prejudiced as alleged by the victim and added that the preacher was interrogated eight times during the investigation. Police, however, said it was not challenging the transfer of probe to the CBI.
The victim's lawyers said that the court was right in transferring the case to the CBI, considering Delhi Police had not arrested the accused despite the seriousness of the allegations. After hearing all the sides, the bench reserved its order on Daati's plea for review of the court's October 3 decision.
Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the preacher, urged the bench to review its order, arguing that the victim had concealed from the high court information regarding pleas filed earlier on the same issue.
Hariharan also contended that it was the trial court's discretion to decide whether the investigation carried out till then was lacking or not, and the high court ought not to have taken away that power, under Article 226.
