Non-bailable warrant issued in opposition to Shiv Sena chief Sanjay Raut

On Friday, January 6, a Mumbai courtroom issued a non-bailable in opposition to Shiv Sena chief Sanjay Raut for failing to look earlier than the courtroom for proceedings in a Rs 100 crore defamation go well with filed in opposition to him by BJP chief Kirit Somaiya’s spouse Medha Somaiya. 

The Sewri metropolitan Justice of the Peace issued the warrant. The Justice of the Peace recorded the complainant Medha Somaiya’s assertion and set the listening to for January 24.

Medha Somaiya’s counsel Advocate Vivekanand Gupta knowledgeable that regardless of courtroom orders, the Shiv Sena chief remained absent from the courtroom proceedings. “After this, we gave an application to issue a non-bailable warrant against Sanjay Raut, consequently, the court issued a non-bailable warrant against him,” Advocate Gupta knowledgeable.

Non Bailable warrant issued in opposition to #sanjayRaut right this moment by twenty fifth Magistrate courtroom, Sewree, in defamation compliant filed by Mrs. Medha @KiritSomaiya in opposition to @rautsanjay61

Next listening to twenty fourth Jan 2023@BJP4Maharashtra @BJP4Mumbai#Defamation #courtroom pic.twitter.com/XdZmZ6cNVw

— Adv.Vivekanand Gupta (@vivekanandg) January 6, 2023

Taking to Twitter, BJP chief Kirit Somaiya knowledgeable concerning the issuance of a non-bailable warrant in opposition to Sanjay Raut and wrote, “Sewree Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against #SanjayRaut for not attending the court. Court recorded Complainant Medha Somaiya’s statement for an hour, in Dr. Medha Kirit Somaiya’s defamation case against Sanjay Raut. Next hearing 24 Jan.”

Sewree Court issued Non Bailable Warrant in opposition to #SanjayRaut for not attending the courtroom

Court recorded Complainant Medha Somaiya assertion for an hour, in Dr Medha Kirit Somaiya defamation case in opposition to Sanjay Raut

Next listening to 24 Jan@BJP4India @Dev_Fadnavis @mieknathshinde

— Kirit Somaiya (@KiritSomaiya) January 6, 2023

This isn’t the primary time the politician has been issued a warrant by the courtroom within the case. In July 2022, Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate had issued a bailable warrant in opposition to him for failing to look in courtroom. It is notable that in a listening to within the case in June 2022, the courtroom had stated that Prima facie, Sanjay Raut had harmed the fame of the complainant.

“The documents and video clips produced on record prima facie revealed that the accused made defamatory statements against the complainant on April 15 and 16, 2022 so that it will be seen by public at large and read by the public in the newspapers,” metropolitan Justice of the Peace PI Mokashi had stated.

It is value noting that Medha Somaiya, spouse of BJP chief Kirit Somaiya, filed a criticism in opposition to Sanjay Raut, accusing him of constructing malicious and unwarranted statements within the media about her and her husband. She had requested that he be charged below sections 503, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

Medha additionally claimed that Raut deliberate to criminally intimidate and threaten her with character assassination with out offering any proof. She later filed a defamation go well with in opposition to Raut on May 24, 2022, in search of Rs 100 crore in damages.

Notably, Sanjay Raut in April final yr had claimed that Medha Somaiya and the Yuva Pratishthan, a non-government group managed by the Somaiya household, have been concerned in a Rs 100 crore bathroom rip-off.

Sanjay Raut, the editor-in-chief of the Shiv Sena mouthpiece ‘Saamna’, had printed an article stating that Medha had constructed unauthorized bathrooms and had lower mangroves with out getting the requisite permissions from environmental authorities. It additionally added that she had looted the general public cash within the title of bathrooms and was main a ‘pretend and fraudulent NGO named Yuva Pratishthan.

Apart from the Saamna article, Raut had additionally repeated the allegations in bites given to digital media. Medha Somaiya refuted the fees, saying he was saying this solely to tarnish her fame.