news details |
|
|
| Accused facing trial in Matador driver murder case denied bail | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Dec 4
Justice Virender Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing has rejected two bail applications filed by Ratno Devi w/o the then SSP Karnail Singh and Suresh Kumar driver of SSP Karnail Singh, who are facing trial along with other accused persons in a much publicized murder of Nitin Sharma, a Matador driver.
According to the prosecution case, Nitin Sharma deceased ,a matador driver, had developed relations with daughter of the petitioner Ratno Devi and this continued for about 6-7 years. This was to the utter disliking of the petitioner and her husband Karnail Singh, SSP. The relations of two ultimately matured in marriage on March 31, 2005, an inter caste affair.
According to the prosecution case the parents of the girl thought of eliminating Nitin Sharma and Karnail Singh, the husband of the petitioner, who was SSP and posted at Rajouri and the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with Naresh Kumar SPO and driver Suresh Kumar (petitioner) that Naresh Kumar would be paid Rs 1 lakh in lieu of murder of Nitin Sharma. On the date of occurrence, Naresh Kumar had contacted the deceased on phone and information was also passed to Ratno Devi. Official ambassador car which was allotted to SSP Karnail Singh and was generally being used as family car at Jammu was used by the petitioner in this incident by changing its number plate and ultimately Naresh Kumar (SPO) by hiring Sohan Lal, Jeet Kumar, Jailam Kumar and Daleep Singh (allegedly contract killers) committed the murder of Nitin Sharma and threw the dead body in the canal. After completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court of law in which all the accused were charged.
During the course of arguments, Adv Sunil Sethi appearing for Ratno Devi submitted that she has been charged for the main offence with aid of section 120-B and 109 RPC. According to him section 109 RPC overlaps, section 120-B RPC and the evidence collected by the prosecution for proving it is in the shape of the statements of two witnesses. He further submitted that the prosecution has not traveled any distance to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence with the aid of section 120-B RPC.
AAG Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the state opposing both the bail applications submitted that not only the motive of the petitioner and her husband Karnail Singh who was SSP was to eliminate Nitin Sharma who had developed relations with their daughter. He said the present petitioner is the person who was behind the curtain and the husband of the petitioner was posted at Rajouri and the official car allotted to him (used in the present case) was virtually under the control of the petitioner, who was staying at Jammu. Mr. Salathia further submitted that SSP Karnail Singh, the husband of the petitioner, was enjoying bail under the grab of interim orders, which he availed from time to time on the basis of his ailment. This is by itself very important fact to say that he was pressurizing the witnesses including the police officials who were under him at one stage. Not to depose against them and he was successful also. This in turn amounts to tempering with the evidence of the prosecution. According to Mr. Salathia not only this fact alone can be considered sufficient for the rejection of the bail application of Ratno Devi petitioner, even the trial Court be directed to reconsider the case of her husband, who is on bail, Mr. Salathia also opposed the bail application of Suresh Kumar.
Court, after considering the both sides, observed that keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances especially the development which has taken place during the last 13-14 months when the husband of Ratno Devi was on bail, Court is of the considered view that she does not deserve the concession of the bail and dismissed the same and Court also declined to grant bail to Suresh Kumar and directed the trial Court to make all sincere efforts to conclude the trail at the earliest. So far as the interim bail of Karnail Singh is concerned it would not be proper for the Court to comment upon the order vide which he has been given this concession till further orders, however, the state is at liberty to ask for the cancellation of the bail by moving a formal application in this regard. In case such application is moved the same would be decided by the Trial Court on any material placed before it by the State. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
