‘With Humanity’ as the Compass: Grand Mufti Launches Kerala Yatra with Call for Unity and Coexistence

A 30-year-old man from Kumragodu village in Brahmavar taluk has been cheated of Rs 15,95,005.90 in an online investment fraud linked to a bogus e-commerce and digital marketing scheme.

According to the complaint filed by Arun Acharya, he came across an advertisement on Instagram on July 22, 2024, posted by an entity calling itself “E BOSS Marketing & Services Company,” which claimed to offer lucrative opportunities in e-commerce, digital marketing, and dropshipping.

After contacting the mobile number mentioned in the advertisement, the accused began communicating with him via WhatsApp and provided training on investing money and earning profits. Initially, Arun received high returns on his investment, which helped gain his confidence.

Trusting the scheme to be genuine, he transferred money in phases between September 2024 and December 19, 2024, through NEFT transactions to bank accounts of E BOSS Marketing & Services Company, allegedly owned by one Har Simran Singh. The total amount transferred was Rs 15,95,005.90.

However, after receiving the money, the accused stopped paying returns and failed to refund the invested amount, thereby cheating the complainant.

Based on the complaint, Brahmavar police have registered a case under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and are investigating the matter.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, saying there was a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

However, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria granted bail to activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad in the case.

Here is what the Bench said on the matter:

"This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail," the Bench said.

"Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," it said, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The Court added that Khalid and Imam can "move for bail on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from present order."

The Court further stated, "The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration. UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding," as mentioned by the publication.

"Section 43D(5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grant of bail. (But) it does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default," the Bench noted.

On December 10, the top court reserved its verdict on separate pleas of the accused after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi police, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused.

Umar, Sharjeel and the other accused were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an anti-terror law, and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured in northeast Delhi.

The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

The accused moved the apex court challenging a Delhi High Court order dated September 2 denying them bail in the "larger conspiracy" case of the February 2020 riots.

Chennai: The Madras High Court has strongly criticised the Tamil Nadu government for citing what it termed an “imaginary” law and order concern to delay the implementation of a court order permitting the lighting of the Deepam on the Deepathoon atop the Thiruparankundram hills in Madurai.

Upholding an earlier order passed by Justice G R Swaminathan, a division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan of the Madurai Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the state government and reaffirmed that the Deepam could be lit at the site during Karthigai Deepam.

The bench expressed displeasure over the government’s failure to implement the single judge’s directive, even after permission was granted for CISF personnel to accompany the petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, to the hilltop on December 3 to light the lamp. While allowing the ritual, the court clarified that the number of people permitted to climb the hill would be determined by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

The state government had objected to the single judge’s order, arguing that allowing people to climb the hill and light the Deepam could trigger law and order issues, as the Sikkander Badusha Dargah is located about 50 metres from the Deepathoon. Meanwhile, officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department went ahead with lighting the lamp at the Uchipillaiyar temple at 6 pm, following established tradition.

Rejecting the government’s stand, the division bench said the apprehension of law and order problems was an “imaginary ghost” created by the authorities for their own convenience and criticised the district administration for not complying with the court’s order. The judges observed that instead of raising unfounded fears, the administration should have used the judgment as an opportunity to foster dialogue and harmony between communities.

The court also noted that neither the state government nor representatives of the dargah had produced any evidence to show that agama shastra prohibited the lighting of the Deepam at the site.

The Thiruparankundram hill has historically been a symbol of communal harmony, housing the Subramaniya Swamy temple, the Kasi Viswanathan temple and the Sikkander Badusha Dargah for centuries. However, the site became a flashpoint in February 2025 after protests by Hindu organisations over allegations that Lok Sabha MP Nawaz Kani consumed meat on the hill. Despite the controversy, local residents continue to live in peace and mutual coexistence.