news details |
|
|
| Wazir brothers, Nagar Singh denied bail in Chopra murder case | | | Et Report
Jammu, Feb 28 : Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Kartar Singh today rejected the bail applications of Trilochan Singh Wazir Ex-MLC, his brother Ajab Singh Wazir and Choudhary Nagar Singh who were facing trial in gruesome murder of Chopra Family. According to the case on September 18, 2006 at 10:30 PM an information was received from reliable sources police station Trikuta Nagar Jammu that some unidentified persons after gaining entry in the residential house of Rajinder Bhushan Chopra alias Raju Chopra with criminal intention at sector 3 Trikuta Nagar have brutally murdered him, his wife Madhu Chopra, daughter Saloni Chopra, Servant Sonu and driver Jagan Nath, after their hands and legs were tied mouths gagged. The dead-bodies were lying on the floor in the pool of blood. After committing crime the accused persons fled from the spot in a white alto car No 0030/JK02AC, owned by Chopra's which was parked in the premises of house. On this FIR No 107/2006 u/s 302 RPC was registered and investigation was taken-up by then SHO Mohd Rafiq Manhas. It is worthwhile to mention here that in this much publicized case police has presented three charge-sheet against Mahesh, Russi, Vicky, Nanju, Bhawani Singh, Sikander, Narinder and Sangram Singh. Court also framed charges u/s 302/396/120-B/109 RPC are made against the accused Dalip whereas Court framed charges u/ss 302/120-B RPC against the accused Ajab Singh, Tarlochan Singh Wazir Ex-MLC NC, Nagar Singh and Rajinder Singh and on May 8, 2012 Court has framed charges. The court after hearing battery of lawyers for the applicants there are 85 witnesses in this case out of which only 22 witnesses have yet been examined. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove the link after link in order to connect the petitioners and other accused with the commission of alleged offence. It cannot be said at this stage as to what type of evidence is yet to be led by the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances and further observed that Special Public Prosecutor Adv LK Sharma submitted that the prior conduct of the petitioners is also to be taken into consideration while enlarging them on bail. The petitioners are facing trial in this court and the court cannot ignore to take judicial notice of the fact that there were number of cases between the prosecution witnesses and the petitioners pending disposal before another court in which clashes took place between some of the petitioners and prosecution witnesses regarding which FIRs have also been registered. This leads the court to presume at this stage that the petitioners as well as prosecution witnesses apprehend threats to their lives from each other because of gang war. In such a situation it will be for the safety of the petitioners as well as prosecution witnesses that they should not be released on bail and in case they are released, they may temper with the prosecution witnesses who would not come to the court to depose against them. The court further observed that the counsel for the petitioners that they are suffering from various ailments and proper treatment is not available to them. The argument of the learned counsel is not based on true facts, because as per jail manual, proper treatment is being provided to all the prisoners and in case of serious disease they are also sent out for specialized treatment. The petitioners have nowhere complained that they have not been provided proper treatment by the jail staff. With these observations court rejected the bail applications. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
