Supreme Court docket adjourned listening to within the sexual harassment case towards Tarun Tejpal to October 15.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court docket on Monday adjourned to October 15 listening to within the sexual harassment case towards former Tehelka Journal Editor Tarun Tejpal, after Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta submitted the sufferer was affected by lung most cancers.

A 3-judge bench of the highest courtroom, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, mounted the matter for additional listening to to October 15 after Mr Mehta, showing for the Goa Police, submitted that the sufferer was affected by lung most cancers.

The bench additionally granted extra time to Tejpal, accused in a 2013 sexual assault case, to file his response on a plea filed by the Goa Police, looking for an extention of time for completion of the trial towards him.

In August final 12 months, the highest courtroom had refused to dismiss the costs framed by a Goa trial courtroom towards Tejpal for allegedly sexually assaulting his former junior colleague in 2013.

Claiming innocence within the case, Vikas Singh, senior lawyer and former Extra Solicitor Normal (ASG) showing for Tarun Tejpal, had submitted that the courtroom ought to think about on level of cost towards him, and sought quashing of the costs towards him within the case.

Tarun Tejpal, the previous Editor-in-chief of Tehelka journal and a veteran journalist, was accused of sexual assault by a feminine colleague in November 2013. He was arrested on November 30, 2013, and is at the moment on bail.

On September 29, 2017, a trial courtroom in Goa had framed the cost of rape towards Tejpal in reference to an alleged rape and sexual harassment case.

The courtroom charged him beneath Sections 376(2) (rape), 354 A (sexual harassment) and 342 (wrongful confinement). However, Tejpal has claimed innocence and pleaded not responsible.

Tejpal had then moved the highest courtroom looking for the dismissal of the costs levelled towards him, on which the Supreme Court docket had on August 6, reserved its order, and later refused to dismiss costs.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here