Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Bail plea of woman who ‘assaulted’ advocate rejected

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, December 11

Advertisement

A court here has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a woman who was accused of assaulting and criminally intimidating a woman advocate on the court premises.

Advertisement

The court was hearing the bail plea of accused Hameeda, against whom a complaint was registered by the advocate.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused. Accordingly, the present bail petition…stands dismissed,” Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said in an order passed on Thursday.

The court noted the present case was registered on the specific complaint of the woman advocate that Hameeda was hurling abuses against advocates inside Karkardooma courts and when the advocate tried to stop her, a verbal altercation ensued, following which Hameeda’s husband also joined her and both manhandled the advocate.

Advertisement

During the incident, the husband-wife duo were joined by two other accused persons, one of whom touched the advocate inappropriately, pushed her and in the scuffle, took away the advocate’s chain and locket, the court said noting the complaint.

The court said it did not appear that there was any prior dispute between the complainant and the accused persons and there were specific allegations against them.

The arguments of the accused’s counsel about moving a complaint against the Station House Officer (SHO) of Dayalpur were “unclear” and “the link drawn was not persuasive,” the court said.

During the proceedings, the prosecution opposed the bail plea, saying custodial interrogation of Hameeda was required considering the seriousness of the offence and for the recovery of the complainant’s chain and locket.

The dispute between the accused and the SHO concerned was not connected with the case, the prosecution said. The counsel for Hameeda said the accused was falsely implicated in the case. — PTI

Was ‘abusing’ lawyers

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement