During the investigation, the petitioner and the co-accused were apprehended on May 28, 2020, and they admitted their involvement in the homicide in their disclosure statement.
The petitioner has said that he has made several attempts to reach the office bearers of all the respondents through email but received a remedy or response. At that, he had filed a CM Application before this Court.
Justice Sen pointed out to the SG that the judgments cited by him (as above) referred to disruptive circumstances that arose 'during the course of trial'. The judge asked: "Can you give us any illustration of the present case where such transfer was allowed in bail application?"
The petition said that this is a serious issue involving environmental concern as the contention of the petitioner is that constructions are being raised in a public park situated at Allahpur, Prayagraj.
The Court said, “In conclusion we quash the FIR registered against Vinod Dua. But the Court rejected Dua’s plea for setting up of a high-level committee in each state to examine sedition charges slapped against journalists of 10 year standing.”
On October 6, 2020, the bench of Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran, had reserved their verdict after hearing arguments for Dua, the Himachal Pradesh government and the complainant in the case.
The petitioner submitted that Challans should be payable online, even if the SOP is not implemented. “I am not the violator and they never contacted me for violation. When I was transferring the vehicle, they called me to pay the challans,” he said.