He claims that Navlakha was in custody for more than 90 days. He was under house arrest for some time before being taken into judicial custody.
#BombayHighCourt is hearing the default bail application filed by Gautam Navlakha, accused in the #BhimaKoregaon case.
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik are hearing the plea.
He claims that Navlakha was in custody for more than 90 days. He was under house arrest for some time before being taken into judicial custody.
He points out that the police had only arrested him and had not taken custody.
Raju asks for 10 mins post 4.30 pm.
Matter will be taken at 4.30 pm.
He refers to the judgment of Chaganti Satyanarayan & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (Read here: https://t.co/T6DA4VkEGM)
He argues that the date of production is important. The period of custody for Navlakha begins from April 15.
More from Bar & Bench
More from Court
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
There will be no substantive change to the sentences passed on the killers of Pc Andrew Harper.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 16, 2020
The Attorney General\u2019s application to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and the defence applications for leave to appeal against sentence have been refused by the Court of Appeal. https://t.co/qxTzuj7jR3
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Grimly cynical.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 12, 2020
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.https://t.co/QWdINvUwwf
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged \u201cfriend\u201d, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are \u201cwet liberal judges\u201d who are \u201csoft on criminals\u201d. https://t.co/5uGggN8tTT
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Attorney General had to be embarrassingly corrected during the hearing by an actual criminal silk after making irrelevant and politicised submissions to the Court of Appeal.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
What a farce. pic.twitter.com/wy81xoFIDI
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
J. Gibbons https://t.co/TieeoF2bZd
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) December 5, 2020
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
You May Also Like
Stan Lee’s fictional superheroes lived in the real New York. Here’s where they lived, and why. https://t.co/oV1IGGN8R6
Stan Lee, who died Monday at 95, was born in Manhattan and graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx. His pulp-fiction heroes have come to define much of popular culture in the early 21st century.
Tying Marvel’s stable of pulp-fiction heroes to a real place — New York — served a counterbalance to the sometimes gravity-challenged action and the improbability of the stories. That was just what Stan Lee wanted. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The New York universe hooked readers. And the artists drew what they were familiar with, which made the Marvel universe authentic-looking, down to the water towers atop many of the buildings. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The Avengers Mansion was a Beaux-Arts palace. Fans know it as 890 Fifth Avenue. The Frick Collection, which now occupies the place, uses the address of the front door: 1 East 70th Street.
Stan Lee, who died Monday at 95, was born in Manhattan and graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx. His pulp-fiction heroes have come to define much of popular culture in the early 21st century.
Tying Marvel’s stable of pulp-fiction heroes to a real place — New York — served a counterbalance to the sometimes gravity-challenged action and the improbability of the stories. That was just what Stan Lee wanted. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The New York universe hooked readers. And the artists drew what they were familiar with, which made the Marvel universe authentic-looking, down to the water towers atop many of the buildings. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The Avengers Mansion was a Beaux-Arts palace. Fans know it as 890 Fifth Avenue. The Frick Collection, which now occupies the place, uses the address of the front door: 1 East 70th Street.