news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of five involved in firing at Nagar Singh House | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 8: City Judge Jammu Manjeet Rai today rejected the bail applications of Amandeep Singh, Rakesh Chowdhary, Surinder Singh, Vijay Kumar and Rishab Bhat allegedly involved in attack on businessman Nagar Singh’s House.
According to the police case that on 03.04.2021 at about 22.00 hours an information was received through PCR in the P/S Gandhi Nagar that some unidentified 5/6 masked persons travelling in 2/3 vehicles numbers not known fired on residential premises of one Nagar Singh S/O Koka Ram R/O H. No. 33 A/D Gandhi Nagar Jammu from outside of gate with firearms with intention to kill him. On the receipt of such information a case FIR No. 91/2021 offence under sections 307/120-B/149 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act registered in the P/S Gandhi Nagar and investigation started.
City Judge Jammu Manjeet Rai after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor Arvind Rathore for the UT observed that the accused are allegedly involved in the offences under section 307/149 /212 /120-B IPC 3/25 Arms Act which are non-bailable and serious in nature, as such, the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Moreover, it would be premature to comment on the evidence collected till date as the investigation of the case is at its initial stage. The accused/applicants do not deserve any leniency in grant of bail. There are also apprehensions that if the accused/applicants are released on bail, they will try to win over the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Court further said that no doubt, liberty of a citizen must be protected by a court. However, when a person is accused of offences of serious in nature, the court has to keep in mind the interest of the prosecution as well as the interest of the society but while granting bail in a non-bailable offence should take into account the various considerations, such as nature and seriousness of the evidence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public and the state, similarly other consideration which arise when the court is asked for bail in a non-bailable offence. It is further held that if the offence is of a kind in which bail should not be granted considering its seriousness the court should refuse the bail. With these observations, the Court rejected the bail application. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
