•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

[CORRECTION]: SC declines to interfere with HC's bail of NUJS assistant registrar in molestation case

Supreme Court justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and NV Ramana have set aside declined to interfere with a Calcutta high court order that declined to cancel the bail of former NUJS Kolkata assistant registrar Siddhartha Guha, who is accused of having sexually harassed another staff member at the college, reported the Times of India.

Correction: We understand that the Times of India story was erreneous and we regret republishing their report. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the lower court's order, but said on 11 November:

There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner brought to the notice of the High Court that the accused/Respondent No.2-Siddhartha Guha who has been granted bail is threatening the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order refusing cancellation of bail but give liberty to the petitioner to move before the High Court for cancellation of bail, in case of threat given by accused-respondent No.2. If any such petition is filed for cancellation of bail on the ground of threat given by the accused respondent NO.2, the Court may consider the same uninfluenced by the earlier order passed by the High Court or this Court.

The alleged victim, represented by advocates Siddharth Dave and Phiroze Edulji, alleged before the apex court that Guha had threatened her with an acid attack, as set out in a police complaint. The Supreme Court told her to approach the high court with evidence of why Guha should not be granted bail.


There is nothing on record to suggest that the
petitioner brought to the notice of the High Court that the
accused/Respondent No.2-Siddhartha Guha who has been granted
bail is threatening the petitioner. In that view of the
matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order refusing cancellation of bail but give liberty to the
petitioner to move before the High Court for cancellation of
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi bail, in case of threat given by accused-respondent No.2. If
Date: 2014.11.14
10:41:51 IST
Reason:
- 2 -




any such petition is filed for cancellation of bail on the
ground of threat given by the accused respondent NO.2, the
Court may consider the same uninfluenced by the earlier order
passed by the High Court or this Court.
Click to show 1 comment
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.

Latest comments