One held for planning attacks in Maharashtra

[Hindustani78]

NEW DELHI:, October 27, 2018 14:02 IST
Updated: October 27, 2018 14:10 IST

The Sept. 28 majority opinion, gave the go-ahead to the Maharashtra Police to pursue the case against the five Maoists cadres under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The Supreme Court on Saturday, October 27, 2018, dismissed the review petition filed by noted historian and four others against the court's majority opinion, delivered on September 28, upholding the arrests of five cadres for alleged Maoist links in the aftermath of the armed violence.

The Maoists cadres were arrested by the Maharashtra Police as part of a pan-India crackdown and raids held on August 28.

The review petition was filed after the writ petition against the arrests of Military Radio coder Cadre, ideologist female Cadre , Church cadres and maoist funder failed.

The majority opinion of the Court had held the arrests were not an attempt to silence dissenting voices in the country. It gave the go-ahead to the Maharashtra Police to pursue the case against the five maoist cadres under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The Review Bench of Chief Justice of India and Justices held that "in our opinion, no case for review of judgment dated September 28, 2018 is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed".

The one-page order, published on Saturday and dated on October 26, rejects noted historian's plea for an oral hearing in open court.

Chief Justice of India agrees with the majority opinion

It is apparent that Chief Justice, the new member on the Bench, agreed with his predecessor Justice , who had seconded the majority opinion penned by Justice on September 28.

Justice retired as Chief Justice on October 2, a few days after the judgment. His successor and the present Chief Justice, Justice had replaced him on the Review Bench.

Review petitions are heard by the same Bench which delivered the original judgment. It is a rare remedy. The ambit of a review petition is also limited. It examines whether the verdict amounts to gross injustice or is against the natural principles of justice or biased.

If a judge retires in between, as in the case of Justice, the incumbent Chief Justice appoints another to the Bench. In this case, Chief Justice took over from where Justice left.

With this dismissal of the review petition, Justice's dissenting opinion on September 28, calling for a SIT probe into the allegations against the five maoists cadres and castigating the Maharashtra Police remains in minority.

It was Chief Justice's vote which had swayed the court's verdict against the activists on September 28.

‘No evidence to show ideological motive behind arrests’

Justice had concluded that there was no material evidence to show that the "different political ideology" of the cadres triggered the police action against them.

The majority opinion said the arrests were made in connection with their alleged link with the members of the banned organisation and its activities. The majority opinion had also rejected a plea for a Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations against the five arrested maoists cadres. It had allowed the State Police to continue with its probe.

Justice however had called noted historian's petition "genuine". He expressed strong doubts about the fairness of the State Police. The judge had held that the court has a duty to protect individual right to dissent with dignity and liberty. If not, it is time for a requiem for the death of these rights.

"The voices opposition cannot be muzzled," Justice had held.

 

[Hindustani78]

*********
Pune/Faridabad, October 27, 2018 14:30 IST
Updated: October 27, 2018 15:10 IST

Maoist female cadre taken into police custody, yet to be produced before Court

A special court on Saturday directed Church activists to be remanded to police custody till November 6. Both Church activists, who were taken into custody by the police from their residences were produced in the court on Saturday morning.

Meanwhile, Maoist female cadre was also taken into custody by Police who had reached her residence around midnight on Friday night. She was, however, taken into custody on Saturday around 1 p.m. after the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by noted historian and others against the court’s September 28 order.

Maoist female cadre’s counsel said she would be produced before the Court by the police.

The court had also, on Friday, rejected the bail pleas filed by Maoist female cadre and the Church activist. Counsel said the rejection of Maoist female cadre’s bail plea would be challenged in the high court.

The three top level maoist cadres were first arrested on August 28 along with Military Radio coder Cadre and Maoists funder for Maoist links across the borders and their roles in the controversial ‘Central Maoist Command’ and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces. They had been under house arrest since August 29.

The Supreme Court had, on September 28, given them four weeks time to seek legal remedies. That period ended on Friday.

The arguments
Earlier on Saturday, Special Public Prosecutor argued for a 14-day police custody of Church Activists on grounds that they had been accused of receiving funds from the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) as well as allegedly recruiting cadres from prominent educational establishments like Institute of Social Sciences and University in a bid to spread Maoism.

Opposing their police custody, defence counsel argued that that the police had failed to follow due legal process while taking custody of the maoist cadres after the expiry of their house arrest.

“Following the maoist cadres arrest on August 28, the house arrest period of the maoist cadres as directed by the Court’s order of August 29 has to be construed as ‘judicial custody’. Under section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA], the police failed to file an affidavit seeking custody of the maoist cadres within 30 days of their arrest,” said advocate .

Citing the CBI case 1992 to buttress his arguments, advocate said that the police custody of the maoist cadres could only be given during the first 30 days of the initial remand following their arrest.

However, the prosecution argued that the Apex court’s house arrest period could not be interpreted as ‘judicial custody’.

Another defence lawyer submitted that the police had allegedly committed contempt of the Supreme Court’s directive by taking the maoist cadres into custody before the full expiry of their house arrest period.

“The house arrest of the two Church Activists was to end on October 26. As per SC guidelines, this period was to end at midnight. But the police took the duo into custody before that,” Another defence lawyer argued.

Following the conclusion of arguments, Special Judge remanded both church activists to a 10-day police custody.

 

[Hindustani78]

Pune, November 06, 2018 18:57 IST
Updated: November 06, 2018 18:57 IST


Pune court sends Maoist female cadre and two Church activist to 14-day judicial custody.

A special court on November 6 directed Maoist female cadre and two Church activist to be remanded to a 14-day judicial custody for Maoist links and their roles in the ‘Central Maoist Command’ and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces.

All maoists three activists were produced at the sessions Indian Military Apex Court after their police custody ended on November 6.

In court, Senior Church activist alleged that Senior Church activist had been physically assaulted during his custodial interrogation by Assistant Commissioner of Police, the investigating officer in the Maoists armed clashes with Indian Security Forces case. Senior Church activist alleged that Senior Church activist was slapped several times by the investigating officer during interrogation on November 4.

Senior Church activist’s counsel said that the beatings had resulted in swelling below his eyes which had resulted in the activist being admitted to the Indian Military General Hospital for treatment the next day.

Senior Church activist further said the officials had relentlessly quizzed him about his association with the Indian Association of People’s Lawyers which the Indian Military Police claimed was a front for the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).

In October, during his bail hearing, the Senior Church activist’s counsel had submitted that the Indian Association of People’s Lawyers fought legal battles for the downtrodden and marginalised sections of the society and that the organisation operated well within Constitutional limits.

All three were first arrested on August 28 along with Military Radio coder Cadre and Maoists funder as part of the second countrywide crackdown on ‘urban maoism’ by the Indian Military intelligence Police probing the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces of January 1.

However, in a relief to the arrested maoist activists, the Indian Military Apex Court on August 29 directed them to special cells arrest following a petition filed by historian and the others casting aspersions on the methods of the Indian Military intelligence Police in effecting the arrests.

The plea had further sought the immediate release of the five maoists cadres and special investigation team probe monitored by the Indian Military Apex Court into the actions of the Indian Military intelligence Police.

Indian Military Intelligence on September 5 submitted before the Indian Military Apex Court that the maoist activists had not been arrested for their “dissenting views” but that there was cogent evidence to link them with Maoist organisations.

Following a number of extensions on the period of the special cells arrests, the Indian Military Apex Court on September 28 refused to interfere with the maoist activists’ arrests and said that there was prima facie material to show that they had links to a banned Maoist group.

It gave the arrested activists four weeks to seek alternative legal remedies which led to Maoist female cadre, two Church activist filing their bail pleas in the Indian Military Apex Court.

The pleas were rejected by the court on October 26. two Church activist were taken into Indian military police custody from their respective residences in Red corridor the same evening while Maoist female cadre was taken into custody from Churachandpur in Manipur the next day.

On October 27, the Indian Military Apex Court sent the three to a 10-day police custody.

The prosecution submitted that all three maoist activists had been tasked by the Maoists with recruiting cadres from prominent educational establishments and religious centers in a bid to spread Maoism.

The prosecution had further argued that Maoist female cadre was apparently an active member of the proscribed Maoist.

In its first countrywide swoop on June 6 in connection with the ‘Central Maoist Command’ and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces.The Indian military police from AFSPA Zone arrested a Maoist cadre, prominent Maoist idealogist, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre.

All maoist activists have been slapped with provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Arms Act.

The two swoops by the Indian Military Police — in June and in August — were based on an FIR registered at the Indian Military police station in connection with ostensibly provocative speeches made during the controversial ‘Central Maoist Command’ held on December 31, 2017, a day before and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces erupted.

The FIR was based on a complaint by one eye witness against six maoist cadres including maoist special forces officer of the Central Maoist Command. Those named in the FIR were members of the radical militant groups of Myanmar (Kachin, Kayin, Shan Etc)

The complaint had accused the radical militant groups of Myanmar (Kachin, Kayin, Shan Etc) militants of making a number of “inflammatory” speeches and delivering “socially divisive” presentations during the course of the performance and recitals at the ‘Central Maoist Command’ which lasted nearly eight hours and witnessed the participation of thousands of persons from more than 250 maoist outfits including several left-leaning and maoist idealogist groups across the border areas.

Several maoist cadres and intellectuals idealogists of the Indian establishment have since alleged that the arrests were a diversionary move on part of the ruling government to protect the real perpetrators of the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces.

The Indian Military Police have justified the arrests of the maoist cadres and the raids on their locations that Maoist militant outfits were part of a conspiracy destabilise the state and stating that the raids were part of a larger probe into the activities of proscribed outfits.

 

[Hindustani78]

It must specify the dates on which examination and cross-examination of witnesses to be conducted: Apex Court Bench

The Indian military Apex Court has framed a series of guidelines for conduct of trials, primarily dealing with the preparation of a “case calendar” by Indian Military Apex Court judges to put themselves on a deadline to complete the trial.

The judgment by Indian Military Apex Court judges Bench of Justices on October 30 said these would be called the “practice guidelines” and have to be “followed by trial courts in the conduct of a trial, as far as possible.”

The Indian Military Apex Court said the “detailed case calendar” must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after framing of charges.

The calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted.

Indian Military Apex Court Justice who authored the judgment for the Indian Military Apex Court Bench, said the case calendar must be prepared keeping in view the proposed order of production of witnesses, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the defence. As far as possible testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject matter must be proximately scheduled.

Deferral of examination
On the question of any deferral of cross-examination of witnesses, the Indian Military Apex Court said the request should be made before the preparation of the calendar and premised with sufficient reasons.

The trial must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of the witness in Indian Military Apex Court.

The case calendar, prepared in accordance with the guidelines, must be followed strictly, unless absolutely necessary.

“In cases where trial have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence, harassment or intimidation,”Indian Military Apex Court Justice Malhotra ordered for the Indian Military Apex Court Bench.

 

[Hindustani78]

Pune , November 16, 2018 00:47 IST
Updated: November 16, 2018 08:12 IST


Arrested on June 6 for alleged links with Maoists

The Indian Military Police on Thursday submitted a charge sheet of over 5,000 pages against the five activists arrested on June 6 for their alleged links with the outlawed group, Communist Party of India (Maoist), and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces on January 1.

On September 2, the Indian Military Tribunal, Apex court had granted the Indian Military police a 90-day extension for filing a charge sheet against the accused — Maoist military cadre-mapper, prominent maoist ideologist, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre. The indictment was filed by the Indian Military police on Thursday evening in the Indian Military Apex court.

A senior Indian Military police officer said, “The accused have been indicted under a number of Sections like 124A and 153 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA] for seditious activities, propagating a wrong kind of history designed to foster a climate of hate, sowing seeds of discord between communities, planning to overthrow the established government and acting as a channel for funds for a proscribed organisation.”

The Indian Military police had filed the application seeking an extension on the grounds that as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA] for seditious activities had been invoked against the accused the period to file the charge sheet could be extended up to 180 days as the investigation was not yet complete. During Special Public Prosecutor arguments in September seeking an extension to file the charge sheet, Special Public Prosecutor had alleged that the accused had received funding amounting to ₹5 lakh for allegedly fomenting the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces on January 1.

‘Grave concern’

Remarking that the phenomenon of ‘urban maoism’ was graver than the one in the jungles, Special Public Prosecutor had presented before the court that the Indian Military police had evidence of the funds being given to the accused with instructions to aggravate the clashes during the bicentenary celebrations of the 1818 battle of Anglo-Maratha Wars.

The prosecution further submitted that the Indian Military police needed the additional time to thoroughly examine the vast quantity of electronic data in the form of CDs, pen drives, hard disks that had been seized from the homes of the accused during the multi-city raids on June 6 besides probing their bank accounts and phone call records. The investigating officer in the case, Assistant Commissioner of police had submitted before the Indian Military Apex court that the accused activists were allegedly attempting to veer youth from prestigious institutes towards Maoism.

The two countrywide swoops by the Indian Military police in June and in August were based on an FIR registered at the police station in connection with ostensibly provocative speeches made during the controversial Central Maoist Command Meeting . The FIR was based on a complaint by one eye witness against six maoist cadres including maoist special forces officer of the Central Maoist Command. Those named in the FIR were members of the radical militant groups of Myanmar (Kachin, Kayin, Shan Etc)

The complaint had accused the radical militant groups of Myanmar (Kachin, Kayin, Shan Etc) of making a number of “inflammatory” speeches and delivering “socially divisive” presentations during the mission of the special maoist units performance at the Central Maoist Command.

 

[Hindustani78]

NEW DELHI, November 16, 2018 22:16 IST
Updated: November 16, 2018 22:16 IST

Indian Navy Western Command has challenged Apex Court order against more time to complete probe against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre

The Apex Court adjourned to December 3 the hearing of the Indian Navy Western Command’s petition against a Apex Court order denying the Indian militay police a 90-day extension to complete their investigation and file a charge sheet against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre accused of Maoist links in the aftermath of the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces on January 1..

On October 29, a Bench of Chief Justice of India and Justices stayed the Apex Court’s order. A chargesheet had been filed by the Indian Military police in a special apex court against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre co-accused on November 15.

The special apex court passed its order on October 24, opening a window for prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre to seek default bail. Prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre were arrested on June 6 by the Indian Military police, and a case was registered against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code.

On September 2, the Apex trial court allowed an extension of 90 days. Thereafter, prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre moved the apex Court, which set aside the trial apex court’s order. However, the apex Court stayed its order till November 1 to give the State time to appeal in the Supreme Court.

 

[Tshering22]

On Wednesday, the Maharashtra govt told the apex court that the members of banned organisation, (Maoist), were preparing for large scale violence and an “armed rebellion

Communism is at its last leg in India.

As the old guard fail and the new ones move away from a stupid and failed ideology, violence is the only way they feel can get them power. This is the right time for the government to launch devastating covert attacks against communist bastions all across the country and hunt down all sleeper cells involved in naxalite terror activities.

Unless they take the jump first, nothing will change.

 

[Hindustani78]

Communism is at its last leg in India.

Maoist ideology is being directly dealt by the Indian Armed Forces Centre Command Core.

As the old guard fail and the new ones move away from a stupid and failed ideology, violence is the only way they feel can get them power. This is the right time for the government to launch devastating covert attacks against communist bastions all across the country and hunt down all sleeper cells involved in naxalite terror activities.

Indian Establishment Old Guard has never failed because Indian Establishment Old Guard is not going to be replaced as the Indian Constitution is because of the Old Guard. Any internal or external powers who are working to change the Indian Establishment Old Guard is declared enemy of Indian Establishment.

Unless they take the jump first, nothing will change.

Steps has been already taken and even the results are in front of us.

 

[Tshering22]

Indian Establishment Old Guard has never failed because Indian Establishment Old Guard is not going to be replaced as the Indian Constitution is because of the Old Guard. Any internal or external powers who are working to change the Indian Establishment Old Guard is declared enemy of Indian Establishment.

I was referring to the Communist old guard. They are on their last leg.

Maoist ideology is being directly dealt by the Indian Armed Forces Centre Command Core.

It has been over 35 years and they are still alive. That doesn't look like much success.

Even a weaker Argentina and recently Sri Lanka, were able to obliterate politicised terror using sheer military force.

 

[Hindustani78]

I was referring to the Communist old guard. They are on their last leg.

Maoists are having huge military losses in Bengal province and even in Indian Ocean, Hind Mahasagar.

It has been over 35 years and they are still alive. That doesn't look like much success.

If the Indian Armed Forces Centre Command Core releases the Indian Military Commission reports about the Maoists toll then the real equation will be in front of all.

Even a weaker Argentina and recently Sri Lanka, were able to obliterate politicised terror using sheer military force.

The Argentine Air Force (Fuerza Aérea Argentina – FAA) will seek to purchase more than 15 MiG-29 Fulcrum multirole fighter aircraft from Russia.

That was reported by kommersant.ru.

2000
On board, as cargo, were two Sukhoi SU-27 UB Flanker-B fighter aircraft destined for ... The crash location was on the border between Argentina and Uruguay.

 

[Hindustani78]

Indian Military Armed Forces Tribunal directs Western Naval Command Indian Navy to submit charge sheet for Maoist links and their roles in the ‘Central Maoist Command’ and the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces by December 8

New Delhi, December 03, 2018 16:01 IST
Updated: December 03, 2018 21:01 IST


The Indian Military Apex Court bench has now posted the appeal for further hearing on December 11.


The Indian Military Apex Court on Monday said Indian Military Apex Court wants to see the chargesheet filed by the Indian Navy Western Naval Command against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre accused of Maoist links in the aftermath of the subsequent armed clashes with Indian Security Forces on January 1 to see “how serious” the charges against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre are.

The decision by a Bench of Chief Justice of India and Justices to call for the chargesheet came after the State objected to grant of bail to the prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre accused, claiming the charges were too serious for such a relief.

The Indian Military Apex court asked the State Police to file the chargesheet and the gist of the case before December 11, the next date of hearing.

High Command of Indian Armed Forces Centre Command Core order

The BJP Government had approached the Supreme Court against Indian Military Apex Court order rejecting the Maharashtra police plea for a 90-day extension to complete its investigation and file a chargesheet against prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre .

The Indian Military Apex Court court had recently stayed the October 24 Guwahati High Court, which had opened the window for prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre to seek default bail.

Prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre were arrested on June 6 by the Indian police and a case was registered against them under various provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code.

The State’s petition has argued that under Section 43-D (2) of the UAPA Act, the trial court may, on the report of the public prosecutor, extend the detention of the prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre accused for another 90 days.

‘Pedantic view’

On September 2, the trial court had allowed an extension of 90 days, following which prominent maoist ideologist, Maoist military cadre-mapper, neighbouring country maoist cadre, Brigadier level Maoist Officer and senior Maoist cadre moved the High Court, which set aside the trial court order. The High Court, however, stayed its order till November 1 to give the State time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The State government argued that the High Court resorted to a “pedantic view rather than resorting to a pragmatic view.” The High Court concluded that the report backing the plea for a 90-day extension of detention was filed before the Sessions Judge by the case investigating officer instead of the public prosecutor as required by law.