Ayen News

Author: news.ayen.in

  • NCB: Sameer Wankhede Enquiry Based on “Non-Anonymous” Complaints

    MUMBAI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has officially clarified its stance regarding the ongoing vigilance enquiry against its former Zonal Director, Sameer Wankhede. In an affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, the agency asserted that the investigation into alleged procedural irregularities is based on verified, “non-anonymous” complaints rather than being politically motivated or conducted at the behest of NCP leader Nawab Malik.

    Key Assertions in the NCB Affidavit

    The affidavit, filed by Vishal Sanap, Deputy Director General (South West Region), aims to dismantle Wankhede’s claims that he is being targeted due to his past enforcement actions.

    • Source of Enquiry: The NCB confirmed that the probe was triggered by two specific, non-anonymous complaints received by the agency. This contradicts Wankhede’s assertion that the agency was acting as a tool for political vendetta.
    • No Link to Nawab Malik: The agency explicitly denied receiving any communication or “behest” from Nawab Malik to initiate these proceedings. Malik’s son-in-law, Sameer Khan, had previously been arrested by Wankhede’s team, which Wankhede claims is the root of the hostility.
    • Duty of Investigation: The NCB maintained that it has a statutory and administrative duty to investigate any credible allegations of “irregularities” or “procedural lapses” involving its officers, especially in high-profile cases.

    The Legal Tug-of-War: Wankhede vs. NCB/CBI

    Sameer Wankhede, a 2008-batch IRS officer, is currently fighting multiple legal battles across the Delhi and Bombay High Courts.

    DateLegal MilestoneContext
    January 19, 2026CAT Quashes MemoThe Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially quashed a charge memorandum against Wankhede, calling it a “personal vendetta.”
    February 27, 2026Delhi HC Stays CATThe Delhi High Court stayed the CAT order, allowing the Centre and NCB to proceed with disciplinary action.
    March 23, 2026Bribery DenialWankhede informed the Bombay HC that he never sought a ₹25 crore bribe in the Aryan Khan case.
    April 7, 2026NCB AffidavitNCB tells Bombay HC that the probe is based on “non-anonymous” complaints.

    The “Cordelia” Connection

    The core of the dispute remains the 2021 Cordelia cruise ship raid. A Special Enquiry Team (SET) led by Gyaneshwar Singh had previously flagged several “procedural lapses” in the investigation that led to the arrest of Aryan Khan.

    Wankhede has consistently argued that the SET report is biased and was designed to provide a “clean chit” to the actor’s son by suppressing material evidence. The CBI FIR against Wankhede, which he is currently seeking to quash in the Bombay High Court, is primarily based on these SET findings.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “NCB to HC: Enquiry against Wankhede based on complaints, not at Malik’s behest” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Hindu: “NCB denies Nawab Malik’s role in Sameer Wankhede probe” (April 7, 2026).
    • Scroll.in: “Delhi HC allows disciplinary action against ex-NCB officer Sameer Wankhede” (February 27, 2026).
    • Legal Record: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court, April 2026).

  • Centre Defends Sabarimala Entry Restrictions; Argues Faith is Beyond Judicial Review

    NEW DELHI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — In a significant legal stance, the Central Government today backed the age-old restriction on the entry of women of menstruating age into Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. Representing the Centre before a nine-judge Constitution Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that religious practices and denominational autonomy are matters of faith that should remain beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.

    The Centre’s Argument: Faith vs. Fundamental Rights

    The hearing, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is part of a broader review of the 2018 judgment that initially lifted the ban. The Solicitor General’s arguments focused on the separation of religious tradition from modern constitutional interpretations of “dignity.”

    • Denominational Autonomy: The Centre argued that Article 26 of the Constitution grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs. Mehta contended that “not everything is related to dignity or bodily freedom,” drawing parallels to wearing head coverings in Gurudwaras or Mazars as accepted traditions.
    • The Science of Ritual: Addressing arguments that the ban is unscientific or discriminatory, the Centre suggested that judicial review is not the appropriate tool for religious reform. Mehta stated, “If there is something unscientific, the remedy is with the legislature,” rather than the courts.
    • Non-Interference: The Solicitor General cautioned that if the court begins testing every religious practice against the touchstone of “modernity” or “science,” it could destabilize the diverse cultural fabric of the country.

    The Nine-Judge Bench: Key Participants

    This bench was constituted to address the intersection of religious freedom (Article 25 & 26) and the right to equality (Article 14).

    JusticeRole
    Justice Surya KantChief Justice of India (Presiding)
    Justice B.V. NagarathnaSenior Member
    Justice M.M. SundreshMember
    Justice Ahsanuddin AmanullahMember
    Justice Aravind KumarMember
    Justice A.G. MasihMember
    Justice P.B. VaraleMember
    Justice R. MahadevanMember
    Justice Joymalya BagchiMember

    Understanding the Legal Conflict

    The case revolves around a fundamental tension between two sets of constitutional rights.

    1. Individual Rights (Articles 14, 15, 21): The argument that a woman’s right to worship and her dignity cannot be curtailed based on biological factors like menstruation.
    2. Group Rights (Article 26): The argument that the followers of Lord Ayyappa constitute a distinct denomination with the right to preserve their unique traditions and the “Naishtika Brahmachari” (eternal celibate) nature of the deity.

    Next Steps in the Hearing

    The bench is expected to continue hearing arguments from various stakeholders, including the Sabarimala Temple Tantris and women’s rights organizations. The outcome of this case will set a massive precedent for other religious disputes, including entry into mosques and the Parsi “Tower of Silence” rituals.

    Sources

    • The Hindu: “Sabarimala: Faith is beyond judicial review, Centre tells SC” (April 7, 2026).
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Centre backs Sabarimala entry curbs; says court can’t test religious faith” (April 7, 2026).
    • Live Law: “Constitution Bench Hearing: Centre argues for denominational autonomy in Sabarimala Case” (April 7, 2026).
    • Supreme Court Records: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Review Petition).

  • Disqualified MP MLA Rajendra Bharti Challenges Conviction in Delhi High Court

    NEW DELHI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — Disqualified Madhya Pradesh Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti has moved the Delhi High Court to challenge his recent conviction and three-year prison sentence in a high-profile cheating and forgery case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a notice to the prosecution on Tuesday and scheduled the next hearing for April 15, 2026.

    Bharti is also seeking a stay on his conviction to stall the disqualification process and has requested the court to direct the Election Commission of India not to notify a by-election for his now-vacant Datia assembly seat.

    The Case: ₹18.5 Lakh Bank Fraud (1998–2011)

    The case involves financial irregularities at the Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank (District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank) in Datia, where Bharti formerly served as the Chairman.

    • The Scheme: According to the prosecution, Bharti’s late mother, Savitri Devi, deposited ₹10 lakh in a fixed deposit (FD) in 1998 for a three-year term at 13.5% interest.
    • The Forgery: Instead of withdrawing the amount upon maturity in 2001, the accused allegedly tampered with bank ledgers and receipts using correction fluid and overwriting to extend the FD’s term to 15 years.
    • Illegal Gains: This allowed the family trust to continue withdrawing high-interest payments until 2011, long after market rates had dropped, resulting in an illegal gain of approximately ₹18.5 lakh.

    Trial Court Verdict & Disqualification

    On April 2, 2026, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at the Rouse Avenue Court sentenced Bharti and former bank cashier Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

    MilestoneDateStatus
    ConvictionApril 1, 2026Found guilty of conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.
    SentencingApril 2, 20263 years jail + ₹1 lakh fine; 60-day bail granted to appeal.
    DisqualificationApril 3, 2026Membership of MP Assembly annulled; Datia seat declared vacant.
    High Court AppealApril 7, 2026Notice issued; hearing set for April 15.

    Political Fallout

    The disqualification has triggered a political firestorm in Madhya Pradesh. Bharti is a prominent Congress leader who defeated former state Home Minister Narottam Mishra in the 2023 assembly elections.

    The MP Congress, led by state president Jitu Patwari, has labeled the disqualification “hasty,” noting that the assembly secretariat issued the notification late at night on April 2, just hours after the sentencing, despite the court granting Bharti two months to file an appeal. The ruling BJP, however, maintains the action was a mandatory legal consequence under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires automatic disqualification for any legislator sentenced to two or more years in prison.

    Sources

    • The Hindu: “Congress MLA disqualified from M.P. Assembly hours after sentence” (April 3, 2026).
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Delhi court sentences Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti to 3 years’ imprisonment” (April 2, 2026).
    • Awaz The Voice: “Gramin Vikas Bank case: Bharti moves court for relief” (April 7, 2026).
    • The New Indian Express: “Delhi court awards three-year-jail term to MP Congress MLA” (April 2, 2026).

  • Kerala HC Clears Release of Film “Kaalam Paranja Kadha” Following Venjaramoodu Case Plea

    KOCHI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to block the release of the Malayalam film Kaalam Paranja Kadha. The plea was filed by the father of the primary accused in the infamous Venjaramoodu mass murder case, who argued that the movie—allegedly inspired by the real-life tragedy—would prejudice his son’s ongoing trial and defame the family.

    The Ruling: Creative Freedom vs. Fair Trial

    Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the arguments presented by Abdal Rahim, the father of the accused A.R. Afan. The court maintained that the judiciary is capable of distinguishing between cinematic fiction and legal evidence.

    • Judicial Neutrality: The judge orally observed that trials are conducted by legally trained judges who are not influenced by cinematic portrayals or “media trials.”
    • CBFC Clearance: The court noted that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already granted the film a U/A 16+ certificate after a thorough review by its Revising Committee.
    • Artistic License: It was remarked that while movies are often “inspired by real events,” an artist’s right to create cannot be easily trampled upon unless it directly interferes with the administration of justice, which was not proven in this case.

    The Venjaramoodu Tragedy (February 24, 2025)

    The petition stems from a brutal incident in early 2025 that shook Thiruvananthapuram.

    Case DetailInformation
    The AccusedA.R. Afan (23), who surrendered at the Venjaramoodu police station.
    The VictimsAfan’s younger brother, uncle, aunt, and girlfriend.
    SurvivorAfan’s mother (a cancer patient), who was critically injured during the attack.
    Alleged MotivePersonal disputes exacerbated by issues related to online gambling and drug use.

    Concerns Raised by the Petitioner

    Abdal Rahim’s counsel, Advocates Sajju V. and Ajmal A., argued that the film would lead to a “pre-judgement” by society.

    1. Defamation: The petitioner claimed that if the public identified the characters with his family, it would cause irreversible damage to their dignity.
    2. Privacy: He argued the family did not “invite public scrutiny” and deserved to be left alone during the pendency of the criminal trial.
    3. CBFC Criticism: The plea alleged that the CBFC had not “applied its mind” and only suggested minor modifications (like muting swear words) without addressing the core grievance.

    Outcome

    The film is now clear for release. The CBFC’s counsel informed the court that the movie actually carries a strong social message against drugs and online gambling, rather than focusing on a specific real-life perpetrator.

    Sources

    • LiveLaw: “Kerala High Court Rejects Plea To Stall Movie ‘Kaalam Paranja Kadha’ Inspired By Venjaramoodu Case” (April 7, 2026).
    • Bar and Bench: “Kerala High Court dismisses plea against release of film based on Venjaramoodu mass murder” (April 7, 2026).
    • Indian Express: “Afan’s father Rahim says he lost everyone because of him” (March 2025 archival data).
    • Official Court Order: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors. [WPC No. 3872/2026].

  • Supreme Court Centralizes Urgent Mentions Under CJI Bench

    NEW DELHI (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant procedural directive centralizing the process for “mentioning” exceptionally urgent matters. According to a circular issued on April 6, 2026, all cases of extreme urgency must now be brought exclusively before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in Court No. 1, even if he is currently presiding over a Constitution Bench.

    Shift in Protocol: Strengthening the Master of Roster

    This new directive marks a departure from long-standing judicial traditions regarding the availability of the “Number Two” judge.

    • Previous Practice: Traditionally, if the CJI was unavailable or occupied with a multi-judge Constitution Bench, lawyers could mention urgent matters for immediate listing before the senior-most associate judge (the ‘Number 2’ judge).
    • New Mandate: Litigants are no longer permitted to approach any other bench for these urgent mentions. Court No. 1 now holds exclusive jurisdiction for these requests to ensure a singular, streamlined channel for high-priority reliefs.

    The “November 2025” Foundation

    The new directive builds upon the comprehensive reforms introduced in the Circular dated November 29, 2025, which established the current framework for automatic listing and oral mentioning.

    CategoryProcedure under the New Directive
    Listing ChannelMust follow the primary protocol established on December 1, 2025.
    Exceptional UrgencyPermitted before Court No. 1 only, regardless of current bench proceedings.
    Prohibited ActionsMentioning is not permitted before any other bench or the senior-most judge in the CJI’s absence.

    [Image: The Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi]

    Defining “Exceptionally Urgent Matters”

    While “urgent” is a broad term, the court has previously categorized specific scenarios that qualify for this fast-track mentioning:

    1. Anticipatory Bail: Cases where there is an imminent threat of arrest.
    2. Death Penalty: Matters involving the imminent execution of a sentence.
    3. Habeas Corpus: Petitions regarding illegal detention.
    4. Demolition/Eviction: Situations where property or residence is under immediate threat of destruction.

    Administrative Impact

    By mandating that these matters go through Court No. 1, the Supreme Court administration appears to be reinforcing the CJI’s role as the “Master of the Roster.” This move is intended to prevent “forum shopping” and ensure that the prioritization of cases remains under a unified leadership, even during complex constitutional hearings that often run for the entire duration of a court day.

    Sources

    • The Economic Times: “Urgent cases to be mentioned only before CJI-led bench: SC” (April 7, 2026).
    • Law Trend: “Only CJI to Hear ‘Exceptionally Urgent’ Mentions, Even During Constitution Bench Hearings” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Hindu: “Urgent cases to be mentioned only before CJI-led Bench: Supreme Court” (April 7, 2026).
    • Supreme Court Circular: F. No. 21/Judl./2025 & April 6, 2026 directive.

  • Rampur Police Uncover insurance Murder Plot; Man Arrested for Killing Constable Wife and Son

    RAMPUR, UTTAR PRADESH (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — In a chilling revelation, the Rampur Police have arrested a man and two accomplices for the premeditated murder of his wife—a serving police constable—and their three-year-old son. The suspects allegedly attempted to stage the crime as a fatal road accident to claim insurance payouts and service benefits totaling ₹2 crore.

    The Incident: A Staged “Accident”

    The crime took place on February 25, 2026, on the Swar-Bajpur road within the Kashipur area.

    • Initial Discovery: Passersby and local police discovered a burnt-out car on the roadside. It appeared that the vehicle had collided with a truck and subsequently caught fire, leading to the deaths of the occupants.
    • The Victims: * Constable [Name Redacted]: Posted in the UP Police.
      • Son (3): The couple’s minor child.
    • The Husband’s Claim: The primary accused, Akash Singh, initially told investigators that a truck had hit their car and the resulting fire trapped his wife and son inside while he was thrown clear.

    The Investigation: 300 CCTV Cameras and Forensic Gaps

    The Ganj Police became suspicious of the husband’s account due to inconsistencies in the forensic evidence at the crash site.

    • Digital Trail: Specialized teams scanned footage from over 300 CCTV cameras along the Swar-Bajpur route. The footage revealed that the car was being followed by a specific vehicle linked to the accomplices and showed the car being stopped and tampered with before the “accident” occurred.
    • Forensic Evidence: Investigators found that the fire had been accelerated using an external fuel source and that the impact with the “truck” (which was never found) did not match the damage profile of the burnt vehicle.
    • The Motive: Financial scrutiny revealed that the husband had recently insured his wife for a massive sum. By killing her, he stood to gain:
      1. ₹2 Crore in insurance claims.
      2. Compassionate Appointment (Job) in the UP Police.
      3. Service Benefits and pension funds.

    Arrests and Charges

    The Rampur Police arrested Akash Singh along with two of his associates who helped execute the plan.

    Case DetailInformation
    Primary AccusedAkash Singh (Husband).
    AccomplicesTwo associates (Identified as local residents).
    Legal ChargesSection 103 (Murder) and Section 61 (Criminal Conspiracy) of the BNS.
    StatusAll three suspects are in judicial custody.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Man, two accomplices held for killing wife, son for insurance money in UP’s Rampur” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Times of India: “Rampur: Constable’s husband arrested for staging car fire to kill wife, son” (April 7, 2026).
    • Hindustan Times: “UP Police solve ‘accident’ mystery; man killed constable wife for ₹2cr insurance” (April 7, 2026).
    • Official Statement: Superintendent of Police (SP), Rampur (April 7, 2026).

  • Inmate Dies by Suicide in Sultanpur District Jail

    SULTANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — An undertrial prisoner allegedly died by suicide in the early hours of Tuesday at the Sultanpur District Jail. The incident has prompted prison authorities to initiate a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the 48-year-old inmate.

    The Incident: 1:30 AM Suicide

    According to jail officials, the incident was discovered during a routine check by the night wardens.

    • The Deceased: Nakchhed Kori (48), a resident of Charathai village in the Dhanpatganj area.
    • The Method: Kori allegedly used a plastic rope to hang himself inside the jail toilet.
    • Timeline: The incident is estimated to have occurred around 1:30 AM.

    Inmate Background

    Jailer Omkar Pandey confirmed that Kori had only been in custody for a short period before the incident.

    DetailInformation
    Incarceration DateMarch 25, 2026
    Legal StatusUndertrial prisoner
    Primary ChargesAttempt to Murder (under the BNS/IPC)
    Previous RecordLodged in jail following a recent local dispute in Dhanpatganj.

    Judicial and Administrative Response

    As per standard protocol for deaths in judicial custody, the jail administration has followed a series of legal steps:

    1. Post-Mortem: The body has been sent to the district hospital for a forensic examination to confirm the cause of death.
    2. Judicial Inquiry: A magisterial probe has been ordered to determine if there were any lapses in security or supervision by the jail staff.
    3. Family Notification: Kori’s relatives in Charathai village have been informed of the incident.

    Context: Safety Concerns in Sultanpur Jail

    This incident adds to a series of recent fatalities at the Sultanpur District Jail that have drawn scrutiny from human rights activists and local authorities.

    • January 2026: An undertrial named Shailendra Singh (41) died under suspicious circumstances; while officials cited a heart attack, the family alleged foul play.
    • September 2025: An inmate named Mohammad Subhan reportedly died by suicide following a quarrel with his wife during a prison visit.
    • Historical Context: In 2023, a high-profile case involving the deaths of two Dalit undertrials was later categorized by a judicial inquiry as “likely forceful hanging,” challenging the initial suicide claims made by prison staff.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “UP: Inmate ends life in Sultanpur district jail” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Times of India: “Undertrial dies by suicide in Sultanpur prison” (April 7, 2026).
    • Rediff News: “Sultanpur Jail Inmate Allegedly Commits Suicide” (April 7, 2026).
    • Official Statement: Jailer Omkar Pandey, Sultanpur District Jail (April 7, 2026).

  • Five Relatives Booked for Assault on Woman and Newlywed in Bhadohi

    BHADOHI, UTTAR PRADESH (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — Police in Bhadohi district have registered a criminal case against five members of a family for allegedly trespassing into a relative’s home and assaulting two women. The victims include a woman and her newlywed daughter-in-law, who were reportedly attacked during a violent confrontation in the Oonj area.

    The Incident: A Family Dispute Turns Violent

    The assault took place last Thursday evening at Meena Bazar, under the jurisdiction of the Oonj Police Station, but the formal First Information Report (FIR) was processed following a preliminary investigation.

    • The Attack: According to the complaint filed by Ramesh Chandra Bind, five of his relatives forcibly entered his residence.
    • The Victims:
      • Israwati Devi: Ramesh’s wife.
      • Pushpa: Ramesh’s newlywed daughter-in-law.
    • The Assailants: The police have named five members of a single family in the FIR:
      • Savitri (The matriarch)
      • Anuj (Savitri’s son)
      • Aradhana, Kanchan, and Aarti (Savitri’s daughters)

    [Image: Map of Bhadohi district highlighting the Oonj and Meena Bazar areas]

    Legal Action and Investigation

    The Oonj Police have booked the five accused under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following the medical examination of the victims.

    Case DetailInformation
    Primary ChargesCriminal Trespass (Section 329), Voluntarily Causing Hurt (Section 115), and Criminal Intimidation (Section 351).
    MotivePreliminary probe suggests an ongoing property or domestic dispute between the two related families.
    StatusFIR registered; police are currently recording statements from neighbors and witnesses in Meena Bazar.
    Medical StatusThe victims sustained minor injuries and are reported to be out of danger.

    Next Steps in the Probe

    The Station House Officer (SHO) of Oonj confirmed that teams have been dispatched to apprehend the accused, who have reportedly been absconding since the complaint was filed. Police are also looking into whether there were any previous complaints of harassment between these two families to determine if the attack was premeditated.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Woman, daughter-in-law assaulted by relatives in UP’s Bhadohi; 5 booked” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Week: “UP: Five of family booked for assaulting woman, daughter-in-law” (April 7, 2026).
    • Local News: “Bhadohi Crime: Family feud leads to assault on newlywed in Meena Bazar” (April 7, 2026).
    • Official Statement: Bhadohi District Police Media Cell (April 7, 2026).

  • Labourer Arrested for Rape of Seven-Year-Old at Thane Construction Site

    THANE (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — Police in Thane city have arrested a 45-year-old labourer for the alleged rape of a seven-year-old girl at a construction site in the Naupada area. The accused, who worked alongside the victim’s parents, was apprehended within hours of the crime being reported on Monday evening.

    The Incident: Breach of Trust at the Workplace

    The survivor and her family reside at the construction site where both the parents and the accused were employed as daily-wage labourers.

    • The Crime: According to the police, the accused allegedly lured the minor to an isolated corner of the construction site on Monday evening while her parents were occupied with work.
    • Discovery: The incident came to light after the girl informed her mother about the assault. The parents immediately approached the local police station to file a complaint.
    • Rapid Response: Recognizing the gravity of the offense, a team from the Naupada Police Station launched a search operation and nabbed the 45-year-old suspect before he could flee the city.

    Legal Action and Charges

    The accused has been booked under stringent sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act.

    Case DetailInformation
    Accused45-year-old male labourer.
    LocationConstruction site in Naupada, Thane.
    Primary ChargesSection 65 (Rape of a child under 12) of the BNS and relevant sections of the POCSO Act.
    Medical StatusThe minor has been shifted to a civil hospital for medical examination and specialized care.
    CustodyThe accused was produced before a local court and remanded to police custody for further interrogation.

    Safety Concerns at Construction Sites

    This incident has reignited concerns regarding the safety of children living at construction projects in urban areas.

    1. Lack of Supervision: Children of migrant labourers often play unsupervised in high-risk environments while parents are working.
    2. Vulnerability: The proximity of unrelated workers in temporary housing creates a significant safety risk for minors.
    3. Mandatory Crèches: Labour laws in India mandate the provision of crèches at construction sites employing a certain number of workers, a rule that is frequently flouted in smaller urban projects.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Labourer held for raping 7-year-old girl at construction site in Thane” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Times of India: “Thane: 45-year-old worker held for raping minor at Naupada site” (April 7, 2026).
    • Hindustan Times: “Minor daughter of labourers raped in Thane; accused arrested” (April 7, 2026).
    • Official Statement: Public Relations Officer, Thane City Police (April 7, 2026).

  • Two Men Killed in Head-On Collision Near Bitroi Railway Crossing

    BUDAUN, UTTAR PRADESH (Tuesday, April 7, 2026) — A tragic road accident on the Budaun-Agra road claimed the lives of two young men late Monday night. The victims were traveling by motorcycle when they were struck head-on by a speeding car near the Bitroi railway crossing, under the jurisdiction of the Mujaria Police Station.

    The Incident: A Late-Night Tragedy

    The collision occurred around 11:30 PM on Monday as the victims were returning from a solemn family obligation.

    • The Victims: * Akash (20): A local resident of the Mujaria area in Budaun.
      • Sumit (21): Akash’s brother-in-law, hailing from the neighboring Sambhal district.
    • The Circumstances: The duo was returning home after attending the funeral rites of a relative at the Kachhla Ganga Ghat.
    • The Crash: Reports indicate a fast-moving car traveling in the opposite direction lost control and rammed into the motorcycle. The impact was so severe that both men reportedly died on the spot.

    Investigation and Legal Action

    The Mujaria Police arrived at the scene shortly after the crash and have initiated a search for the driver of the offending vehicle.

    Case DetailInformation
    LocationBudaun-Agra Road, near Bitroi Railway Crossing.
    Offending VehicleUnidentified speeding car (Driver fled the scene).
    Status of VictimsBodies sent for post-mortem examination.
    Legal ChargesFIR being registered under sections for Causing Death by Negligence (Section 106 of the BNS).

    Search for the Accused

    Police officials confirmed that the car driver abandoned the vehicle and fled the scene immediately after the accident. Teams are currently:

    1. Scanning CCTV footage from nearby toll plazas and the railway crossing.
    2. Tracing the vehicle’s registration number to identify the owner.
    3. Questioning potential witnesses who may have seen the vehicle’s movement prior to the crash.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Two killed as speeding car hits motorcycle in UP’s Budaun” (April 7, 2026).
    • The Week: “UP: Two cousins killed in road accident in Budaun” (April 7, 2026).
    • Local News Report: “Budaun-Agra road accident: Two youths die returning from Kachhla Ghat” (April 7, 2026).
    • Official Statement: SHO, Mujaria Police Station (April 7, 2026).