Collector-SP appeared in court in Ganga Jamna School Hijab case. – Photo: Social Media Expansion
Damoh collector Mayank Agarwal, SP Rakesh Kumar Singh and Kotwali TI Vijay Singh Rajput appeared in the court. Here, the court rejected the bail plea of ​​accused Anas Athar, Rustum Ali and Principal Asfa Shaikh in the case. Giving information in the case, Public Prosecutor Mukesh Jain said that in the case of Ganga Jamna School, accused Anas Athar, Rustam Ali And a bail application was filed by Principal Asfa Shaikh. In this, earlier on the basis of the tweet of Damoh Collector and SP, it was said that the Collector-SP had given a clean chit. Damoh Collector and SP were also summoned by the court in the same case. After listening to everyone’s arguments, the court rejected the bail plea of ​​the accused. It was told that on the plea of ​​the lawyers of the accused party, the court asked the Collector and the SP whether 31 On May, he posted on Twitter that no irregularities were found in the school. To which the Collector-SP said yes. Advocate Gajendra Choubey, who is representing the accused in the case related to Ganga Jamna School Management, said that initially a complaint was made, in which the girl students were made to wear hijab. In this matter the collector got the investigation done and after that made a tweet in which no irregularities were found in the school. I put before the court that 233 the report which was presented on May No irregularity was found. After that National Child Protection Commission President Priyanka Kanungo asked the district administration to file an FIR against the Ganga Jamna school management and after that the action started. Collector, SP has said in the court that yes it is absolutely correct 30 Till May there was no crime of any kind in the school. Advocate Choubey argued in the court that even after that the investigation was started, in which there was no complaint from anyone. No one’s name has been mentioned in the FIR that has been registered for the first time, yet the teachers have been arrested and harassed. , told the definition of hijab1686751902 Advocate Gajendra Choubey told the court that there is no definition of hijab in the IPC. The cloth we tie to cover our face is called Hijab. He said that when Ravana had reached in front of Sita ji, she had talked to Ravana with the help of a straw, which means that straw was also acting as a hijab. We have a purdah system, we will call it hijab. The thing by which we hide our face, our nose and features is called Hijab.

Others Advocate said – If anti-national activities emerge, I will withdraw the Vakalatnama Second advocate Anunay Srivastava, who is appearing on behalf of the accused side, has told the court that advocacy is our business. To put any side in front, but as long as we are keeping someone’s side in front, as long as that crime is not against any society, any country. Today we have also said in the court that today we are defending this case, but the day the wires of this case start getting connected with such activities which will be against the country, then we will be the first advocate to get his Vakalatnama from this case. Will take it back In the present crime, there is a question of school, school management and future of the children, so I am pleading in this case. ,