#Section 353 IPC

[lawzapo-legal]

What action can be taken against person illegaly detaining a Government official doing his duty?

In the present case we see that the Accused has illegally detained the Client's Father while he was carrying out his duties as an official of the Central Government.

This said Act by the Accused is completely illegal under Section 186 of theIndian Penal Code. Under this Section, the obstruction of a public official while he is doing his duty is laid down to be a criminal offence. It is punishable with imprisonment upto three months or to a fine of upto 500 Rupees or both.

In this case shown by the Client we can see that the Police have been controlled by the Mafia, hence a complaint to the local police station regarding the same might not be of use.

Therefore. it leaves the Client with only one option. The Client should file a writ petition (Habeas Corpus) in the High Court of Gujarat. This can be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Client should pray to the Court to give direction to the Police to produce the Client's father in front of the Court. The Client must mention the important details suchas the date he left Surat and the place that he went to, and the purpose of such a visit and under what capapcity the visit was made.

Reference Laws: Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

[seemabhatnagar]

‘General Public can’t force their entry into prohibited area for offering prayer

Israr Ahmad v. State of UP through Addl. Principal Secretary Home

Crl. Misc. Case No. 8877/2023

Before Lucknow High Court

Heard by the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Singh J

The case was dismissed on 07.02.2024

Background

Petitioner invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Lucknow High Court for quashing the summoning order of CJM Pratapgarh, charge sheet as well as proceedings in connection with criminal case instituted against him by the State for the offence’s U/s 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh.

Facts

On 29.11.2019 at about 12.00 noon Reserved Inspector, Police Line Pratapgarh was doing his regular work in his office & adequate security was deployed at the main gate of the police line as well as at the different picket points in the police line and there was standing order that no private person would be allowed to enter into the police line without adequate permission.

He was informed around that the applicant Israr Ahmad, Jafrul Hassan, Sujjat Ulla, all leaders of the AIMIM Party, as well as other active members of aforesaid party forcibly tried to enter into the police line, when the guard tried to stop them, they challenged them that they will enter into the premise for offering Namaz.

Informant-Reserved Inspector along with his companion officer rushed to the main gate,

Thereafter, extra force was deployed then all the aforesaid persons fled from the scene.

Submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner

Investigation was initiated against the applicant on the basis of concocted facts.

Chargesheet U/s 332, 353, 504, 447, 153B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act was submitted in a mechanical manner.

No sanction order was obtained from the Competent Authority before filing of the aforesaid charge sheet for the offence under Section 153B I.P.C., which is mandatory, on which the trial court has taken cognizance.

Since long time, the people working nearby the police line are offering Namaz in the mosque situated in the police line campus by taking necessary precautions.

Submission of the Counsel of the State

The mosque situated in the police line premises cannot be allowed to general public for offering Namaz/prayer, for the reason that arms and ammunition of the police personnel are being stored in Armory in the police line and District Wireless Control Room & Cyber Cell is there.

Permission for entering inside the premises is allowed only on the permission of the guards deployed at the Gate.

The accused persons forcibly tried to enter into the police line by raising several slogans and also making skirmish with the police personnel.

Sr. Officials were informed Reserved Police Inspector along with force came to the spot to stop them.

Because of law-and-order situation extra force was deployed to which the accused persons ran away.

Merely on the ground that there was no independent witness at the place of incident, charge sheet cannot be quashed.

In the radius of 6 km of police line, 60 mosques are situated and the mosque which is situated in the police line is not allowed for civilians due to security reasons,

Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh has also taken decision for further investigation, therefore, entire charge sheet cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the sanction was not obtained for Section 153 A IPC.

That during the pendency of the trial, sanction order can be placed before the trial court, therefore, charge sheet as well as summoning order cannot be quashed

Submission of the SP Pratapgarh

The campus of police line is a sensitive place in which Armory, District Wireless Control Room and Cyber Control Room etc. are situated

The accused persons forcibly entered into the campus of police line by interrupting the official duty of police personnel

Further investigation will be completed very soon and report be submitted in Court.

Observation of the Court

On perusing the pleading of the State, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh has decided for further investigation of the case in question, and he had himself informed to this Court that he will take all care and precautions for further investigation of the case in question in just and fair manner.

In such circumstances, merely on the ground that the sanction was not taken by the Investigating Officer from the competent authority and submitted charge sheet to the Court concerned, on which, Court has taken cognizance, charge sheet as well as cognizance order cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

This Court is also of the view that the campus of police line is a sensitive place where Armory, District Wireless Control Room and Cyber Control Room, etc. are situated, therefore, public at large should not be allowed in the premises without valid permission of Superintendent of Police of the District.

[stackumbrellayamini]

OMG!! Odisha MLA Did This to A Lady Constable During a Rally!! Video Goes Viral…

A Member of the Odisha Legislative Assembly, Jayanarayan Mishra has put himself in misery after getting into a fight with a lady inspector during a rally. The politician went to attend a BJP rally that was arranged to protest against the inappropriate law and order in the State.

Allegations on Odisha MLA Jayanarayan Mishra

Odisha MLA Jayanarayan Mishra went to a rally where he got into an argument with Dhanupali police IIC Anita Pradhan. The argument got heated up and resulted in causing intense fight between the two of them. The MLA tried to threaten the police inspector and he even got carried away and almost slapped her during the fight.

Both parties have filed an FIR against each other. Based on the complaint of Anita Pradhan, police have registered a complaint against the MLA under Sections  354, 353, 332, 294, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, MLA also lodged a complaint against the lady inspector accusing her of pushing him twice during the argument.

Video from the incident went viral in which the MLA can be seen showing a gesture of slap in front of the lady constable.

How Did it Start? 

The MLA went on a rally to protest against the worsening law and order in the state. The protestors tried to break the laws instead and got into a fight with the police. In the heat of the moment, Jayanarayan Mishra went one on one with the lady inspector Anita Pradhan and called her “corrupt and dacoit”.

At last, Sambalpur SP B Gangadhar said that he will investigate the case and take the required action based on them.

Also Read: WFI President Accused of Sexual Harassment! Mischievous Crook or Cong Conspiracy Victim?

The news made a hugely controversial topic over the social media platform. #StepDownJayanarayanMishra goes trending on Twitter. Check out:

[elikamadaan]

LIBEL V. SLANDER

Defamation is not an unheard term for the common people too, as every now and then, news related to such a case is featured and highlighted. Defaming is the act of maligning someone’s reputation through libel or slander.

To establish or prove defamation, these three important essentials factors should be there:

The statement must be defamatory and damaging.

It must be directed to the claimant.

It must be communicated or published to at least one person other than the claimant.

Right to reputation is an inherent right guaranteed by Article 21 and therefore, to safeguard this, the right to freedom and speech bestowed by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, is not absolute.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBEL AND SLANDER:

That libel and slander are two different forms of defamation, may not be known to many of us.

Libel: An intransigent form of defamation, one that is permanent in nature, for example, writing, photography, film, statue, printing, picture, effigy, etc. Hence, statements in books, newspapers, articles, letters, etc. that tarnish someone’s reputation are libels. Additionally, anything that can be viewed by people like film or statue, and is denigrating, are also libels.

Slander: This is a transient form of defamation, temporary in nature, generally caused by gestures or spoken words. This includes statements made verbally or gesticulations that vilifies a person’s reputation.

Thus, it is obvious that both of these are features of the tort of defamation and are regulated by similar principles. While libel is a defamation that is addressed to the eye, slander is addressed to the ears.

DEFAMATION & INDIAN LAW:

Both the forms of defamation, libel, and slander, are not distinctly considered different from each other in Indian Law. A person so defamed can seek relief in the form of damages under civil laws and punishments under the criminal law.

The civil law for defamation has not been codified in the form of legislation and therefore, is covered by the law of torts. Under such circumstances, the claimant is required to prove that defamation occurred.

The criminal law clearly defines defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”

Furthermore, Section 500, 501 of the IPC enumerates the quantum of punishment in such cases; which could be either fine or simple imprisonment of two years or both.

CASE LAWS WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO NEWSPAPER LIBEL:

Freedom of expression and speech is considered a right that is universally accepted. The Supreme Court while hearing the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,[1] ascertained that freedom of press/media is undoubtedly the strongest pillar of a democratic country like ours. Yet, under no circumstances, it grants the right to defame someone and harm his reputation by false and baseless allegations and by innuendos and insinuations.

Newspaper libel can be said to be defamation caused by publishing a statement that mars a person’s reputation and tends to lower his status in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, so much so that they start avoiding him.

In the case of Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers[2], the Court agreed that a defamed person is regarded with a feeling of disdain, abhorrence, disrespect, loath or horror.

In an interesting case of Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath[3] which comes out as a clear-cut example of defamation. The plaintiff accused the defendants of printing false statements regarding allegations that he accepted bribes, issued false certificates, etc. These statements, when investigated, were found to be false, and thus the defendants were charged with defamation.

In other cases, like Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapiskar[4] and Abdul Wahab Galadari v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.[5], the statements published were seen to be hurting the reputation of some but were found to be factual, and hence, did not amount to defamation.

A defamation case can stand further scrutiny only if there is a direct reference to the person in the statement thus made. This was established by the Court in the case of T.V Ramasubha Iyer v. AMA Mohindeen[6].

For a case to stand a chance of action against the publishers, it must be conclusively proved that the statements published were defamatory in nature, as the Court stated in the cases of Mitha Rustomji Murzban v. Nusserwanji Engineer[7] and DP Chaudhary v. Kumari Manjulata[8].

Furthermore, as was determined by the Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram[9], the publishing of incorrect information in a newspaper makes the editor liable too, unless there is a contract of that effect.

Proving the falsity of a statement that has been published has to be the basis of any defamatory case. Thus, if a statement is true and factual, fair and bona fide, then it shall not be treated as defamatory in nature. This fact was highlighted by the Court in the case of Dainik Bhaskar v. Madhusudan Bhaskar.

THE LAST WORD!

The dominant outcome of all cases of defamation is that an individual’s right to reputation should be upheld if the statement is not correct

There is an obvious conflict that arises between the freedom of expression, the essence of a democratic society; and the right to reputation, which is a constitutional right bestowed on every individual.

The remedy lies in the hands of publications to be ethical at all times and promote, what is known as ‘responsible journalism’. Freedom of expression is a right that is not ‘absolute’ but comes with riders as it impacts other individuals too. In finding a balance between the freedom that the press enjoys and the responsibility that lies on its shoulder to be truthful, lies the key to protecting themselves from defamation cases.

[1] (1985) 1 SCC 641

[2] (1980) 109 D.L.R. (3d) 531, 353, 541

[3] AIR 1985 Bom 285.

[4] AIR 1998 SC 2117.

[5] AIR 1994 Bom 69.

[6] AIR 1972 Mad 398.

[7] (1941) 43 Bom LR 631

[8] AIR 1997 Raj 170

[9] AIR 1969 Punjab 201

visit: https://www.schooloflegaleducation.com/blog-post/libel-v-slander/

[dailynews9]

UP court frames charges against SP's Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan

UP court frames charges against SP’s Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan

Muzaffarnagar : A special MP / MLA court in neighboring Shamli on Tuesday framed charges against Samajwadi Party legislator Nahid Hasan in a 2019 attempt to murder case. UP court frames charges against Charges were framed under IPC sections 323 ( voluntary causing hurt ), 353 ( assault or criminal force to deter public servant for discharge of his duty ), and 307 ( attempt to murder ) against…

[kimskashmir]

Police files FIR into ‘stone pelting’ on forest staff in Mendhar

The action comes range officer of forest Mendhar earlier this week wrote a letter to concerned SHO, seeking FIR against the offenders.

POONCH — Police have registered a case into “stone pelting” against forest employees while they were performing official duty in the Mendhar area of Poonch. SHO Mendhar Niaz Ahmed confirmed to GNS that the case under IPC sections of 353 (deterring a public servant from performing official duties) and 336 (act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of…

[znewstech]

Hanuman Chalisa row: Court grants pre-arrest bail to MP Navneet Rana, MLA husband in second FIR | India News

Hanuman Chalisa row: Court grants pre-arrest bail to MP Navneet Rana, MLA husband in second FIR | India News

MUMBAI: A special court in Mumbai on Tuesday allowed the anticipatory bail application of Independent Lok Sabha MP Navneet Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana in a case pertaining to obstructing the police from arresting them in the aftermath of the Hanuman Chalisa row. Their anticipatory bail plea, in connection with the second FIR that Khar police had registered under IPC section 353 (assault or…

[thenetionalnews]

Mumbai Police File Chargesheet Against Rana Couple for Offense Under IPC Section 353

Mumbai Police File Chargesheet Against Rana Couple for Offense Under IPC Section 353

The politician couple is currently out on bail. (Image: PTI/File) The Khar police, probing the case, filed the chargesheet in connection with the second FIR registered against them under Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 353 in the magistrate court in suburban Borivali PTI Mumbai Last Updated:June 08, 2022, 18:47 IST FOLLOW US ON: Mumbai police on Wednesday filed a chargesheet against…

[kupwaratimes-fan]

9 held in Delhi's Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured

9 held in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured

9 held in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured Noida (Uttar Pradesh): A day after violence broke out between two groups in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri, nine people have been held so far, said police on Sunday. Police have lodged a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 323, 427, 436, 307, 120B IPC read with 27 Arms Act. During the violence nine people, including eight policemen…

[seemabhatnagar]

 "Bail granted to the acid attacker but with stringent conditions"

Naresh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Crl. Appeal: 3329/2023

Allowed by the Supreme Court of India yesterday on 30.10.2023

The Bench Comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul J &

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia J

Fact:

The victim had filed an FIR alleging that the appellant had forcibly dragged her to an area, and had subsequently #thrownacid on her when she retaliated.

Bail Granted by Apex Court to the alleged accused of #AcidAttack

1.    The #ApexCourt #granted #bail to the alleged accused appellant who was in jail for more than a year and is charged for throwing acid on Govnt Servan posted as Lekhpal with the intention to kill her.

2.    Bail was also given for the reason that out of 7 witnesses, 4 #vital #privatewitnesses were already #examined

3.    However, Bail was given with terms and conditions and in case of any breach of the conditions given in bail or any other conditions imposed by the trial Court, the #trialcourt has the #rights to #cancel the bail granted to the appellant.

#Conditions of #Bail

1.    The appellant will #notenter #Agra where the complainant resides till the Court proceedings conclude, #except attending to the #Courtproceedings.

2.    The appellant shall not, in any manner, #come within the #vicinity of the #complainant.

Background

1.     Bail application was earlier moved before Allahabad High Court #rejected it.

2.     The Allahabad High Court in the impugned order rejecting bail had taken note of the #CCTVfootage collected during the investigation where the #accused was seen #chasing the #victim and even after some altercation, he continued to chase and threaten her and was also seen throwing certain liquid on her.

3.     During the course of trial, the FIR dated September 7, 2021 was lodged for offences u/s 354A, 354D, 353, 283, 504, 506 IPC.

4.     The accused allegedly made another attempt of acid attack on the victim for which charge-sheet was submitted under Section 326B, 354 and 506 IPC.

Submission of the Counsel of the Appellant

1.      It was contended that appellant is in fact innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.

2.     It was argued that in the injury report of the victim, no injury was found on her body.

3.     Therefore, no offence under Section 326-B I.P.C. is made out against him.

4.     Further that he is languishing in jail since September, 2022.

Earlier Allahabad High Court Rejected Bail Application

1.    The Allahabad High Court in the order while rejecting the bail application had observed, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, severity of punishment and also considering the repeated offence of the applicant against the victim, who is a government servant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail”.

Seema Bhatnagar

[thenorthlines]

Govt. Teacher, Anr arrested for Reasi police party attack

Govt. Teacher, Anr arrested for Reasi police party attack

Reasi, Sep 28: Police on Tuesday arrested two criminals for attacking a police party and creating law and order problems in the Chassana area. “Case FIR no 35/2021 U/S 341, 353, 382, 147, 149, 336, 504, 506, 225, 224, 120-B IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act has been registered in police station Chassana on 31st of August 2021 when notorious criminals of the area…

[jknewsinfo]

*Government Teacher (History Sheeter) among Two Arrested for Attack on Police Party; Reasi Police* ( 13 Accused booked and arrested in the case till now Two Government Teachers are History Sheeters of Police Station Chasana & accused in the case) Team of Chasana (Reasi) Police arrested two criminals for act of endangering life & personal safety of others, attack on Police party and creating law and order problem in Chassana area. Case FIR no 35/2021 U/S 341, 353, 382, 147, 149, 336, 504, 506, 225, 224, 120-B IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public property Act has been registered in police station Chassana on 31st of August 2021 when notorious criminals of the area attacked police party while another hardcore criminal & Ex Sarpanch Prem Singh wanted in rape case & his accomplices of Thalkote-Chassana were arrested on 31st of August. Prem Singh is a bad-name history Sheeter involved in ten case FIR including four cases of attack on police including firing by weapon issued under Village Defense Committees, attempt to murder & rape. Victim had lodged a written complaint against Prem Singh & others with allegations of rape. On this FIR 47/2020 was registered in Police Station Chasana & complainant was taken to judicial magistrate for recording the statement of the victim in this heinous crime of rarest of rare nature. The victim stated the involvement of Prem Singh in commission of the heinous crime, recorded her statement & collected by the investigating officer of police station Chasana as evidence in the case. The accused is a hard core criminal having experience of 25 years in the dirty games. In 1996 history sheeter Prem Singh lodged first fake FIR & first time he himself was accused in FIR 84/2002 police station Mahore for attacking police. The twenty five years criminal-record in of Police station reveals that not only the history sheeter is accused in ten FIRs but also complainant in two fake FIRs lodged by him in the year 1996 & 2002. Five times police has recorded his bad reports of raising communal tensions, enemity & creating wedge between the communities in the area by false propaganda as well violations in the election process. Twic https://www.instagram.com/p/CUXYu6RBk19/?utm_medium=tumblr

[net4news]

Haryana: After protest against BJP minister, case registered against 13 farmers in Jagadhri | Chandigarh News

YAMUNANAGAR: The Yamunanagar district police on Saturday registered a case against 13 identified farmers and others who held a strong protest against Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Haryana transport minister Mool Chand Sharma in Jagadhri. The farmers have been booked for allegedly using criminal force against the police, causing damage to public property and attempted to break the police barricades using tractors. On the complaint of Jagadhri City police station house officer (SHO) inspector Suresh Kumar, the police have registered a case against 13 identified farmers and other under Section 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt with intent to deter public servant from his duty), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 3 (mischief causing damage to public property) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDP) Act at Jagadhri City police station on Saturday. Those booked have been identified as Sanju of Gundiana village, Sahib Singh, Subhash Gujjar of Daurang, Gurdeep Singh of Talakaur, Rupinder Kaur of Mandebar, Raj Kumar Sipiawala, Bittu of Tejli, Raman of Udhamgarh, Major Singh of Mehal Wali, Amrit Singh of Kathwala, Mohan Singh of Munda Kheri, Vijaypal of Galili, and Mandeep Singh of Rod Chappar. In his complaint, inspector Suresh said that he was deputed on VIP duty at Ram Leela Bhawan, Jagadhri with regards to the meeting of Haryana transport minister Mool Chand Sharma, education minister Kanwar Pal, and Yamunanagar MLA Ghanshyam Dass Arora and other workers of the party (BJP). "At about 12.15pm, a large number of people of Kisan Union carrying union flags reached to the spot. The farmers had spread the information about the visit of ministers in the WhatsApp groups of Charuni Group, Rakesh Tikait Group, and CPM Group and gathered a large number of people. The farmers gathered with their tractors and cars at Matka Chowk, Jagadhri", said inspector Suresh. "To stop them (farmers), the police had placed the barricading naka and the farmers were very furious. The farmers gathered in large number and attempted to break police barricades to move forward. The police were stopping them from moving forward. Among these farmers were Sanju, Sahib Singh, Subhash Gujjar, Gurdeep Singh, Rupinder Kaur, Raj Kumar, Bittu, Raman, Major Singh, Amrit Singh, Mohan Singh, Vijaypal and Mandeep Singh", said inspector Suresh. "One Sardar driver Mandeep Singh brought a blue colour tractor and stopped it near the naka and it was followed by one more tractor. They were stopped by the police for some time and later in a fit of anger, he (Mandeep) hit the barricades with the tractor and the police personnel saved themselves by getting aside. After protesting for a long time at the barricades with their flags, the farmers blocked the road near Matka Chowk. They obstructed the government duty of police and caused loss to government property. Government officials also received injuries", further added inspector Suresh. Deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Rajender Kumar said, "We have registered a case under relevant Sections of the law and the investigation will be carried forward and more sections could be added accordingly. The protestors had attempted to force their way by breaking the barricades with tractors and this would have been fatal for the on-duty staff. They were allowed to hold a peaceful protest at a distance of about 200 meters." "So far, no arrests have been made and action will be taken as per the investigation", added DSP Jagadhri. Source link Read the full article

[newsmatters]

Village head, brother booked for threatening female health worker in Uttar Pradesh- The New Indian Express

Village head, brother booked for threatening female health worker in Uttar Pradesh- The New Indian Express

By PTI MUZAFFARNAGAR: Uttar Pradesh’s Sikri village head Rajender and his brother Ranu have been booked for allegedly threatening and disrupting the official work of a woman health worker here, police said on Monday. On the basis of a complaint filed by health worker Rachna Sharma, a case was registered against the accused on Sunday under IPC sections 189, 353, 427 and 506, Station House Officer…

[f3news]

Yusuf_Abrahni par #FIR Darj

Yusuf_Abrahni par #FIR Darj

👤 E Ward Officer Markhand Dagadkher ne Congress Neta Yusuf Abrahni par FIR Darj karwayi ✋ E Ward ke Asst Eng Markhand Dagadekar ne Aroop lagaya ki Yusuf Abrahni ne Unhe Dhamki di ✋ Ward Officer ne apni Complaint mai kaha ki Illegal Bandhkaam par notice issue karne par Yusuf Abrahni ne Un ki office mai ghus kar jaan se maarne ki dhamki di 🚨 Section 353 IPC stands as: “Assault or criminal force…

[globalexpressnews]

'Those who are scared of truth...': Rahul Gandhi reacts to arrest of journalist Mandeep Punia from Singhu border

'Those who are scared of truth…': Rahul Gandhi reacts to arrest of journalist Mandeep Punia from Singhu border

According to Delhi Police, Poonia was arrested on Saturday night. An FIR under the IPC section 186 (obstructing public servant in the discharge of public functions) and section 353 (assaulting a public servant in the execution of duty) has been filed against Poonia at Alipur police station, the police said. Another journalist, Dharmender Singh, was also briefly picked up and later let go after he…