Non- bailable warrants issued against Simarjeet Singh Bains
Lok Insaaf Party (LIP) president and Atam Nagar MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains on Tuesday appeared in a Patiala court after he was issued non-bailable warrants in a defamation case filed by Punjab local bodies minister Brahm Mohindra.
A Patiala court, issued non-bailable arrest warrants against lok Insaaf party (LIP) chief Simarjeet Singh Bains in a defamation case, had repeatedly failed to appear before the court.
- A defamation case was filed by the local bodies minister Brahm Mohindra, against the LIP chief, simarjeet singh Bains.
- Bains repeatedly failed to appear before the court.
- The court had issued non bailable warrants against him.
- Bains, alleged that Mohindra had links with a pharmaceutical company that was supplying drugs to the de- addiction centres in Punjab.
- He further alleged that, Mahindra had used his position as health minister to benefit a particular pharmaceutical company in which he had a stake.
- Further, in his Pubic speeches the MLA had alleged that the minister was using his office to blackmail owners of de-addiction centres in the state to buy medicines from that company.
Also Read- Criminal Defamation in India
The major issue in this case is that, it was Bains who had made allegations, and Mohindra had filed a defamation case against him. Since the case filed Bains had failed to appear before the court. Initially he saught exemptions from his personal appearance.
Section 205 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code
- Defamation.—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. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Also Read- Document Based Allegation is not Defamation
For case specific advice, one may contact top/best expert Criminal Defamation Lawyer in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali (Punjab & Haryana).
More on 99888-17966.