New Delhi:

 The Delhi High Court has directed a social media user, a woman, to take down a post from X alleging a centipede in Amul ice cream. It also restrained the woman and others from making such posts on social platforms.

The Delhi High Court said in an order on Thursday.

The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited moved against the user and sought a direction for the removal of the post on X. The high court passed an ex-parte order noting the non-appearance of defendants.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the removal of the social media post uploaded by them on defendant Deepa Devi’s X account titled @Deepadi11 within three days from the date of passing of this order.

The High Court has restrained Deepa Devi and other defendants from posting any content identical or similar to the said post on the X or any other social media platform, including Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, until further orders.

“The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are further restrained from publishing or causing to publish any content with regard to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s product with respect to the incidents referred to in the plaint, anywhere on the internet or in print or electronic media until further orders,” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said in an order passed on July 4.

Senior counsel Sunil Dalal, for the plaintiff federation, stated that numerous stringent quality checks have been employed by the plaintiff at every stage, from procurement of raw milk from farmers to the manufacturing of ice cream at the plaintiff’s state-of-the-art ISO-certified plants, till the loading of finished products in specially designed temperature-controlled refrigerated vans.

It was also submitted that the stringent quality checks completely and absolutely ensure that no physical, bacterial, or chemical contamination whatsoever is introduced to the product and also ensure that each product conforms to the standards laid out by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

He further stated that stringent inspection is done at every stage, from milking cattle till packaging and loading, and stringent quality inspection is carried out. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for any foreign substance, let alone an insect, to be present in an AMUL ice cream tub packed at the facility.

The High Court noted that a representative met the defendants but they refused to hand over the subject Amul ice cream tub so that it could be tested to verify their claims.

It was stated that the plaintiff was willing to investigate the matter to ascertain the veracity of the claims of defendants 1 and 2. However, they refused to make available the said ice cream tub to the officials of the plaintiff.

The defendants no. 1 and 2 did not appear before the court despite the issuance of summons.

The bench said that it is a matter of record that defendants were served with an advance copy of the suit record in June 2024 by the counsel for the plaintiff prior to its first listing on June 28; however, none appeared for them either on June 28 or July 1.

The matter has been listed for hearing on July 22.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court has directed a Noida-resident to remove her social media posts that alleged she found a centipede in a tub of Amul ice cream bought by her.

Justice Manmeet P S Arora, while dealing with a lawsuit by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation which markets products under Amul brand, further restrained the customer from posting and uploading any other identical or similar content on social media platforms until further orders.

In a post on social media platform ‘X’ on June 15, Deepa Devi had shared a picture purportedly showing a centipede inside her Amul ice cream tub that she ordered through an instant delivery app.

The plaintiff company argued in high court that the claim was false and incorrect as it was absolutely impossible for any foreign substance, let alone an insect, to be present in an ice cream tub packed at its facility.

In an order passed on July 4, the court observed that the non-cooperation of the customers who have also remained absent in the present proceedings, has given credence to the company’s case.

It noted that the customers were given an opportunity to participate in the court proceedings and make good the claim that they canvassed in their social media post but they “elected not to appear” and also refused to hand over the ice cream tub to the company for the purpose of the investigation.

“The non-appearance of defendant nos. 1 and 2 (Deepa Devi and her husband) evidences their unwillingness to participate in the forensic examination and verification of their claims of the dead insect made in the social media posts uploaded on 15.06.2024,” observed the court in an ad interim ex-parte order passed in the case.

“Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are directed to forthwith remove the social media posts uploaded by them on defendant no. 1’s Twitter/X account titled @Deepadi11 ..within 3 days,” ordered the court.

They are restrained from “posting and uploading any content identical or similar to the said post” on ‘X’ or any other social media platform including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube until further orders, it said.

They are further restrained from “publishing or causing to publish any content with regard to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s product with respect to the incidents referred to in the plaint, anywhere on the internet or in print or electronic media until further orders,” it added.

The court clarified that if the defendants fail to take down the social media posts within three days, the company can write to ‘X’ to delete the same from their platform.

Represented by senior advocate Sunil Dalal and lawyer Abhishek Singh, the plaintiff company submitted that while the company was willing to investigate the matter and had even contacted the customers on June 15, they refused to make available the ice cream tub to the officials.

It was submitted that numerous stringent quality checks are employed at every stage — from procurement of raw milk from the farmer till the manufacturing of the ice cream at the plaintiff’s state of art ISO certified plants, till the loading of finished product in specially-designed, temperature-controlled refrigerated vans.

The court was assured that stringent quality checks absolutely ensure that no physical, bacterial or chemical contamination whatsoever is introduced to the product and also, ensures that each product conforms to the standards laid out by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

The plaintiff argued that a forensic examination can be conducted by any government laboratory as it would effectively determine whether the insect was indeed present in the ice cream tub before it was sealed and packed. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal being brought to Rouse Avenue Court by CBI in connection with the Excise policy case, in New Delhi
| Photo Credit: ANI

The Delhi High Court on July 5 asked the CBI to respond to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea in the corruption case registered by the CBI in connection with the alleged excise policy scam.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued a notice to the CBI on the bail plea and listed it for further hearing on July 17.

Arvind Kejriwal hearing highlights

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, said the AAP leader is not a flight risk and not a terrorist and the CBI arrested him after he got bail in the ED’s money laundering case.

Advocate DP Singh, appearing for the CBI, raised objection over Kejriwal directly approaching the HC without first filing the bail plea before the trial court.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he is still lodged in judicial custody in a connected money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Mr. Kejriwal, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, was granted bail by the trial court in the money laundering case on June 20. However, the trial court’s order was stayed by the high court.

The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving the formulation and execution of the policy.

According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favours extended to the licence holders.

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pass judgment on bail petitions moved by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in CBI and ED cases related to the Excise Policy case on July 1, 2024.

The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, after hearing submissions from all sides, decided to reserve the order in the matter on May 28, 2024.

For K Kavitha, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari and Advocate Nitesh Rana argued in the matter. Advocates Mohit Rao and Deepak Nagar also appeared for K Kavitha. Advocate DP Singh appeared for the CBI, and Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.

The CBI, while opposing the bail plea, stated that further investigation is at a very crucial stage on certain key aspects, including the involvement of other public servants and private persons as well as the flow of the ill-gotten money. If the accused petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that she will thwart the investigation, more specifically when she fails to meet the ‘triple test,’ as laid down by the Constitutional Courts in a catena of decisions.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also opposed the bail plea and stated that in the case of an offence of money laundering, mere routine conditions that ensure the presence of the accused during the trial or protect the evidence are not enough because of the trans-border nature of the offence and the influence that may be exercised by the accused. An accused can anonymously remove the money trail using the technology available today, making the investigation and trial infructuous.

The Delhi High Court had earlier issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate and CBI on the bail petitions moved by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the money laundering case pertaining to the scrapped Excise policy of Delhi.

Recently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a supplementary prosecution complaint (chargesheet) in the Excise Policy money laundering case in Rouse Avenue Court.

The chargesheet was filed against BRS leader K Kavitha and other accused, namely Chanpreet Singh, Damodar, Prince Singh, and Arvind Kumar.

The plea moved by K Kavitha stated that she is the mother of two children, one of whom is a minor presently under shock and undergoing medical supervision. Kavitha, in her fresh bail plea, alleges that there have been attempts to drag her into the scandal by the members of the ruling party at the Centre.

She, through the bail plea, submitted that the entire case of the Enforcement Directorate hinges upon statements made by the approver, witnesses, or co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA. The Prosecution Complaints do not provide a single document that corroborates the statements. There is not a single piece of evidence that points to the guilt of the Applicant.

She further stated that the arrest of the applicant is illegal as Section 19 of the PMLA has not been complied with.

Neither has any corroboration to the allegation of the actual cash transaction nor any money trail is forthcoming, therefore, the satisfaction of guilt as expressed in her Arrest Order is merely a sham and a pretense, she stated.

On May 6, The Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi dismissed the bail petitions moved by Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in connection with CBI and ED cases related to the Excise Policy case.

BRS leader K Kavitha was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 15, 2024, and by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 11, 2024.

Earlier, CBI, through a remand application, stated that “Kavitha Kalvakuntla was required to be arrested in the instant case to conduct her custodial interrogation for confronting her with the evidence and witnesses to unearth the larger conspiracy hatched among the accused, suspect persons regarding the formulation and implementation of the Excise Policy, as well as to establish the money trail of ill-gotten money generated and to establish the role of other accused/suspect persons, including public servants, as well as to unearth the facts which are in her exclusive knowledge.”

The CBI inquiry was recommended based on the findings of the Delhi Chief Secretary’s report filed in July showing prima facie violations of the GNCTD Act 1991, Transaction of Business Rules (ToBR)-1993, Delhi Excise Act-2009, and Delhi Excise Rules-2010, officials said.

The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy, undue favours were extended to license holders, the license fee was waived or reduced, and the L-1 license was extended without the competent authority’s approval.

The beneficiaries diverted “illegal” gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection, the probe agencies said.

As per the allegations, the Excise Department had decided to refund the earnest money deposit of about Rs 30 crore to a successful tenderer against the set rules.

Even though there was no enabling provision, a waiver on tendered license fees was allowed from December 28, 2021, to January 27, 2022, due to COVID-19, the probe agency said, and there was an alleged loss of Rs 144.36 crore to the exchequer.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Arvind Kejriwal will remain in jail after the Delhi High Court, on Tuesday afternoon, upheld its interim stay on a lower court granting the Chief Minister regular bail in the alleged liquor policy case.

The High Court argued that the lower court – Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court – “didn’t apply its mind” when granting bail and pointed to what it said were lapses in judgement. These included not giving the prosecution enough time to argue the application and failing to properly discuss conditions for release in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, under which Mr Kejriwal was charged.

“Averments and allegations made in the main petition (in which the prosecution challenged Mr Kejriwal’s bail order) require due consideration…,” the High Court said, declaring the lower court had also failed to “discuss the vicarious liability of Arvind Kejriwal under Section 70 of the PMLA”.

Arvind Kejriwal Bail Hearing Live Updates | AAP Boss To Stay In Jail

“This court has (therefore) decided that the vacation judge (in the Rouse Avenue Court, Niyay Bindu) did not appropriately appreciate material on record and the averments of ED,” the High Court said.

“Accordingly, the application is allowed and operation of the impugned order is stayed.”

ED Had Moved High Court On Bail

The High Court had been approached last week by the Enforcement Directorate – the federal agency that arrested the AAP leader in March in connection with the liquor policy case. The ED filed a last-gasp petition challenging a city court’s regular bail order, which it called “perverse” and “flawed”.

READ | Near Release, Kejriwal’s Bail Paused Till New Court Decision

The High Court heard both sides and then directed an interim stay on Mr Kejriwal’s release pending its full verdict today. On Monday Mr Kejriwal moved the Supreme Court against that interim stay.

The Supreme Court refused immediate relief to the Delhi Chief Minister, noting it would be improper for it to intervene when the High Court had reserved its judgement.

READ | “What Happened Is Unusual”: Top Court On Kejriwal Bail Hearing

It did, however, admit the High Court’s actions were “unusual”; Justice Manoj Misra said, “In stay matters, orders are not reserved but passed on the spot. What has happened here is unusual.”

“Why Can’t I Be Free?” Kejriwal Argued

In the top court – which last month granted Mr Kejriwal interim bail so he could campaign for his party, and the Congress-led INDIA opposition bloc, in the general election – the AAP leader argued that the “balance of convenience” was in his favour. “If bail is reversed, he will go back to jail… as he did after the Supreme Court’s interim release,” senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi had said.

Mr Singhvi also referred to the top court’s order granting Mr Kejriwal that interim bail, in which it acknowledged the AAP leader is not a “habitual offender” and has no criminal antecedents.

“Why can’t I be free in the interim? I have a judgment in my favour…” he had asked.

Last Thursday Mr Kejriwal was given regular bail by the Rouse Avenue Court.

READ | Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Gets Bail In Liquor Policy Case

The court accepted his argument that the case against him rested only on statements from former accused who have since turned government witnesses. “Circumstances have to be so intrinsically linked (as to) lead to the guilt. Statements by tainted persons discredit prosecution’s case. There is no evidence Rs 100 crore came from ‘South Group’. There is no evidence,” he argued.

Why Was Mr Kejriwal Arrested?

The ED arrested Mr Kejriwal over money laundering allegations while framing the Delhi liquor policy for 2021-22, which was later scrapped after the Lieutenant Governor raised red flags.

The ED has alleged that the money Mr Kejriwal and the AAP got from the liquor sellers – around Rs 100 crore – was used to fund the party’s poll campaign in Goa and Punjab.

Both Mr Kejriwal and the AAP have rubbished the charges, calling them political vendetta and pointing out that despite months of searching the ED has still not found the alleged bribe money.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

A Delhi Court has sentenced a man to a 20-year jail term under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for sexually assaulting a boy.

The court has granted a compensation of Rs 20 Lakh for the rehabilitation of the victim, who is now a college-going boy. He was a minor of 16 years when he was sodomized by the convict in 2021.

An FIR was lodged by the father of the victim at Rajouri Garden police station.

Special judge (POCSO) Preeti Pareva sentenced the convict Mahendra to a rigorous jail term of 20 years and imposed a fine of Rs 52000 under sections 6 and 12 of POCSO and sections of IPC

Additionally, the man was also convicted under Section 66 E (punishment for violation of privacy) under the Information and Technology (IT) Act.

While sentencing the convicts, the court said, “The purpose of the criminal justice system is not only to attain catharsis by handing down proportionate punishment to the offender but also to rehabilitate the victim, who is scarred physically and mentally, forever.

“If we fail to do so, we are indicating our duty towards the victim, whose psychological well-being has been denied and may have longer repercussions,” it added.

This case was lodged on 11 February 2021 by the father of the victim boy who alleged that his son was sodomized by the Convict and he also took pictures of the victim. On the basis of this complaint, a case under sections of POCSO, IPC and IT Act was registered.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court halted Arvind Kejriwal’s anticipated release on bail after an urgent petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) just hours before the Delhi Chief Minister was set to leave Tihar jail. The agency The High Court said till it heard the petition, the trial court order granting Mr Kejriwal bail would not be acted upon.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, argued against the trial court’s decision to grant bail to Mr Kejriwal, labelling it as “perverse” and highlighting serious procedural irregularities. “The trial court’s order is completely flawed. The court said there was no direct proof. That’s a wrong statement by the court,” Mr Raju said before the bench comprising Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ravinder Dudeja.

“We showed material but nothing considered. There are two ways when bail can be cancelled. If relevant facts are not considered and irrelevant facts are considered, that is grounds for cancellation of bail. I am saying look at the soundness of the order. Could have granted bail but not in this manner. Totally perverse order,” he added.

The Additional Solicitor General said that the trial court arrived on the decision based on wrong facts. “On wrong facts, wrong dates, you come to a conclusion that mala fide. But why, the reason is missing. My note not considered, not allowed to argue. The arrest was challenged. The remanding court said the arrest was correct. It was challenged before this court. The single judge said nothing wrong with the arrest,” he said.

Citing a 2014 Supreme Court precedent, Mr Raju underscored the importance of ensuring that bail decisions are based on sound legal reasoning and comprehensive evaluation of all pertinent facts. “The trial court should not have overlooked relevant aspects and should not have relied on irrelevant considerations,” he asserted.

“The court did not hear our arguments, did not properly examine the evidence we provided, and dismissed our concerns without due consideration,” he added.

The High Court, while temporarily suspending the bail order, indicated that a thorough examination of the ED’s petition would be conducted before any further decisions are made. “Until the matter is fully heard and evaluated, the trial court’s decision granting bail cannot be implemented,” the bench declared.

The ED arrested Mr Kejriwal over money laundering allegations while framing the Delhi liquor policy for 2021-22, which was later scrapped after the Lieutenant Governor raised red flags. The ED has alleged the money Mr Kejriwal got from the liquor sellers was used to fund the party’s campaign in Goa since he is the convenor of the AAP.

New Delhi:

 Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of trafficking Indian citizens to Russia to be deployed on the battlefront in the war against Ukraine against their will, observing that the charges against him are serious and he could try to destroy evidence.

Special Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal denied relief to Mumbai resident Micheal Elangovan Anthony who claimed innocence.

“The allegations against the accused are grave and serious in nature. Enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage will hamper further investigation of the case. There is also a possibility that he may try to destroy the evidence which are yet to be obtained by the IO (investigating officer). The applicant may also assist the other accused persons in continuing to evade the process of law,” the judge said in an order passed on June 7.

The accused had sought bail claiming he was himself was a victim of the racket and falsely implicated in the case.

Anthony was arrested on April 26 and is in custody since then.

According to the CBI, the accused and his alleged accomplices trafficked Indian nationals to Russia on the pretext of getting them jobs in the Russian army as security guards, helpers and the like in return for money.

The CBI alleged that the victims were “deceptively made to sign contract for joining Russian army”. They were trained in combat roles and provided Russian army uniform and badges.

These Indian nationals were then deployed in war zones against their wish and their lives were put in danger, the CBI alleged, adding that some of them also got grievously injured.

The alleged racketeers had also duped Indian students with the promise of securing for them admissions to dubious private universities in Russia. They offered them free discounted visa extensions, fee structure, etc. and left at the mercy of visa agents and college authorities, it alleged.

The passports of the victims of the alleged scam, the CBI claimed, were impounded by the agents upon their arrival in Russia.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court has directed the Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and social media platforms to remove the tweets/ videos alleging that veteran journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language during a live show on the day of Lok Sabha election results.

Journalist Rajat Sharma moved a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against Congress leaders on Saturday and sought direction for immediate takedown of the posts on X and YouTube videos posted by them.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in an order passed on June 14, 2024, stated that “The irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff/ Rajat Sharma if the videos and Tweets, etc as mentioned above, are allowed to be in the public domain, it would continue to cause harm to his reputation as a respectable Journalist which would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.”

“No harm would be caused to the defendants (Congress Leaders and Social Media platforms ) if the material is restrained from remaining in the public domain till the suit is adjudicated on merits, while these tweets have the potential of bringing disrepute to the Plaintiff in future with practically no reparation to the damage to his reputation”.

“The plaintiff may have quantified damages for defamation and to his reputation but if such videos are permitted to remain in public, the harm already caused would get perpetuated in future. Therefore, the irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant/plaintiff in case the injunction as sought by the applicant/plaintiff is not granted,” said the bench.

The bench directed, “the X posts/Tweets which have not been removed, be removed within seven days by the defendants in terms of the Intermediary Guidelines. It is further directed that the videos which are in the public domain be made private by Google India Pvt Ltd and not to be put in the public domain, without the Orders of this Court.”

Rajat Sharma through suit had sought interim relief to restrain the Congress leaders from making allegations against him. He has sought directions to take down the related videos with immediate effect from X and other social media intermediaries.

Recently, Congress spokesperson Ragini Nayak accused Sharma of abusing her on television on June 4, the day votes were counted for the Lok Sabha polls. Jairam Ramesh and Khera had made remarks on the issue on X.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for Rajat Sharma and submitted that abusive language was not used by the senior journalist. He also submitted that the allegations made against Sharma were “baseless and are cooked up”.

Mr Singh said the show was telecast live on June 4 and no issues were raised by the Congress leaders but later, after six days, the issue was brought to the fore. He further pointed out that the tweets made and the allegations levelled against him were damaging his reputation.

On June 11, Rajat Sharma addressed the allegations levelled against him by the Congress Party. Mr Sharma, in his statement, termed the allegations a conspiracy to slander his name and reputation as a journalist.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday fumed over the “incomplete” autopsy report of Anuj Thapan, an accused arrested in connection with firing outside actor Salman Khan’s house and died in police custody.

A vacation bench of Justices N R Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan perused the post-mortem report and said it does not include vital details, such as diagram of the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased’s body and if there were any other injuries on the body.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Rita Devi, the mother of accused Anuj Thapan, who died on May 1 inside the toilet of the lock-up of the Mumbai police’s crime branch.

While the police claim that Thapan killed himself, his mother Rita Devi in her petition filed on May 3 in the high court alleged foul play and claimed that he was killed.

Ms Devi in the plea sought the HC to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the death of her son.

The petition said that Thapan was physically assaulted and tortured by the police in custody.

On Wednesday, additional public prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik submitted a preliminary report on the inquiry being carried out by the state CID into Thapan’s death.

Yagnik also submitted Thapan’s post-mortem report.

The court perused it and said that as per the report, the cause of the death is asphyxiation, but certain other details were missing.

“Where is the diagram of the ligature mark? Is the ligature mark oblique in shape or round? Death by asphyxiation can also be because of strangling. It need not be because of hanging only,” the court said.

It added that the report also does not have the column giving details of whether there were any other injuries on the deceased’s body.

“This is not a complete post-mortem report. It is incomplete,” the high court said.

Yagnik said the investigating team would make necessary enquiries with the doctors concerned.

The bench directed a copy of the report to be handed over to the petitioner and posted the matter for further hearing in June.

Senior counsel Aabad Ponda, appearing for Salman Khan, sought deletion of the actor’s name as party respondent in the plea and claimed that the petitioner has not made any pleadings against the actor.

“The actor is in fact the victim here. Someone tried to attack him (Khan) and his house. He does not know who is behind the attacks and who have been arrested,” Mr Ponda said.

He added that naming him as a respondent in the present plea was sending a wrong signal and causing damage to his reputation.

Ms Devi’s advocate submitted to the court that at present the petitioner was not seeking any relief or action against Mr Khan.

The court took note of the same.

On April 14, two bike-borne persons opened fire outside actor Salman Khan’s residence in Bandra area.

The duo – Vicky Gupta and Sagar Pal – was later arrested from Gujarat. Thapan was arrested on April 26 from Punjab along with one other person in the case.

A total of six persons were arrested in the case, of whom Thapan died. While four are in judicial custody, the fifth accused arrested earlier this week is in police custody.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)