Samaksh Sharma

Advocate | Litigation & Legal Affairs | Courts, Constitution & Public Policy | Rule of Law, Justice & Due Process | Views Personal

[khabar Samachar @khabar_samachar]

Court issues bailable warrant in Dhruv Rathee case; next hearing on October 31, claims complainant's lawyer

#DhruvRathee #VikasPandey #DelhiCourt #BailableWarrant #DefamationCase #LegalNews #DelhiNews #HindiNews #BreakingNews #KhabarSamachar

[IANS @ians_india]

Delhi: Advocate Samaksh Sharma, representing the complainant in the Dhruv Rathee case, says, "In the case of Vikas Pandey versus Dhruv Rathee, we are the advocates on behalf of the complainant, Vikas Pandey. In this matter, we had issued summons against Dhruv Rathee, which were served. Today was the court date. Today as well, neither Dhruv Rathee appeared nor did any advocate appear on his behalf. So, the court has issued bailable warrants against Dhruv Rathee, and the next date of hearing in this matter is October 31st. Further, we will follow whatever due process of the court applies, and we will take whatever action can be taken..."

[Joyti pandey @askingjoyti]

If Arvind Kejriwal had to apologise in court, Dhruv Rathee isn't above the law either. Let the legal process take its course. @AdvSamaksh

[Arnab Goswami Satire @Asksindia_]

ध्रुव राठी एक नंबर का फट्टू है। जब देख रहा है कि हर तरफ से घिर गया है, तो घर से गायब हो गया है। पक्का, वो देश छोड़कर वापस जर्मनी भागने की फिराक में होगा। @AdvSamaksh

[Pankaj Jha 🇮🇳 @PJha_666]

Being popular on YouTube doesn't put anyone above the law 😂 If there's a case to answer, let the court decide. @AdvSamaksh

[Amrita Pandey @iAmritapandey_]

विदेश में बैठकर किसी के भी खिलाफ कुछ भी लिख देना आज फैशन है, और इस फैशन की शुरुआत 8 साल पहले ध्रुव राठी ने ही की थी। छोड़ना नहीं है इसको, विकास जी। @AdvSamaksh

[Abhishek Roy @askingabhishek]

Social media fame isn't a free pass from legal accountability. Let the facts come out and the law do its job. @AdvSamaksh

[Sudhanshu Pandey @The_Sudhanshu__]

अरविंद केजरीवाल को कोर्ट में माफ़ी माँगनी पड़ गई, तो ये ध्रुव राठी किस खेत की मूली है? ये भी माफ़ी माँगेगा। बस, इसको किसी भी हाल में छोड़ना नहीं है। @AdvSamaksh

[Anishka Pandey @askingpandey]

Rules should be the same for everyone, whether you're a politician or a YouTuber. If Dhruv Rathee has a case to answer, let the law take its course. @AdvSamaksh

[Avi😉 @yar_ye_mera_hai]

No special treatment for anyone. If the allegations have merit, they should be tested through due process, and the outcome should speak for itself. @AdvSamaksh

[Moneycontrol @moneycontrolcom]

Dhruv Rathee gets fresh summons in 2018 defamation case, next hearing on Oct 17

-Delhi court issues fresh summons to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.
-Case stems from a 2018 defamation complaint by Vikas Pandey.
-Next court hearing in the defamation case is set for Oct 17.

Read More:
https://t.co/dOCX33e6Vl

[Press Trust of India @PTI_News]

VIDEO | Delhi: Advocate Samaksh Sharma, the complainant's lawyer, on Saket court issuing summons to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in an 8-year-old case, says, "This is an 8-year-old case, and a number of times summons has been issued against Dhruv Rathee, but he deliberately avoids the service of summons. Recently, when we got to know that he is in India, we went to the court, we got a fresh summons... Then today we went to his residence and he was not available there, as per our information, no one opened the door of his residence... The next hearing is on the October 17th..."

(Full video available on PTI Videos - https://t.co/bIyFWTfmBd)

#Delhi #DhruvRathee

[Vikas Pandey (Sankrityayan) @MODIfiedVikas]

The "brave" @dhruv_rathee didn't even come out. Anways, enough of fake news. See u in the court. Thanks a lot
@AdvSamaksh!

[AajTak @aajtak]

नीला ड्रम हत्याकांड: डेढ़ साल के दर्द और कोर्ट के फैसले पर बोलीं सौरभ की मां

#MeerutBlueDrumMurder #MuskanRastogi #SahilShukla #SaurabhRajpurMurderCase | @gauravcsawant @aviralhimanshu

[ANI @ANI]

#WATCH | Meerut, UP: Advocate Krishan Kumar Dubey says, "Both have been sentenced to death for the crime. They have been ordered to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 under Section 302 and Rs 20,000 under Section 238A. It is a historic verdict. The entire nation was watching; the eyes of the public were fixed on what punishment the perpetrators of this crime would receive. They appeared to be in a state of shock; they were stunned. One can imagine the mental state of someone facing the death penalty. The defense had presented arguments—such as the fact that no one actually witnessed the murder and that both accused have daughters—but these were all set aside because the evidence presented by the prosecution was so strong, significant, and precise that it conclusively proved their guilt. The primary basis was the nature of the murder itself: she killed her husband—whom she had married out of love—and then dismembered his body into three parts for disposal, hiding the remains in a blue drum. It was a meticulously planned conspiracy and strategy. She executed the murder with a calm and composed mind. Consequently, the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for such a premeditated killing. This is a significant verdict among the country's court rulings; a woman being sentenced to death is, in itself, a precedent-setting event... Regarding her daughter, she can stay with her mother for six years."