news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of former minister in Hawala case | | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 20: Special Judge NIA Ashwani Sharma today rejected the bail application of ex-Minister Jatinder Singh @ Babu Singh in Hawala trade case. During the course of hearing APP Anil Magotra submitted that applicant is involved in the commission of FIR 73/2022 under sections 13/17/18 of UA(P) Act at P/S Gandhi Nagar Jammu and a sum of Rs 6, 90,000 were recovered from the possession of accused Mohammad Sharief Shah co-accused who was coming from Kashmir to Jammu to hand over Hawala money to Babu Singh.
It was submitted that the investigation of the case was transferred to SIA Jammu vide PHQ order 1337 of 2022 dated 12-4-2022 and the CD file along with other relevant documents have been handed over to the SIA for further investigation. During the course of investigations the items were seized and has conducted the personal search and cash worth Rs 6, 90,000 Indian currency, cell phone, cheque books of J&K Bank, ATM Card of J&K Bank, ATM SBI Bank PAN Card, Aadhar Card and other items were seized.
Shah during the course of investigation revealed that he had received the aforesaid cash from an unknown person in Srinagar on the direction of Babu Singh who told him to give reference to Khateeb while receiving money. Before receiving money he had received whatsapp messages from a Pakistan number. The electronic gadgets seized from the applicant herein and co-accused have been sent to FSL Srinagar for expert opinion.
Special Judge NIA observed that the investigation of the case is still pending and the allegations against the applicant herein are yet to be investigated by the investigating agency. The applicant herein being an ex MLA/ex minister of erstwhile state of J&K and if enlarged on bail at this stage, there are chances of tampering with the witnesses of the prosecution and exercising influence over the witnesses of the prosecution and intimidating them also and nobody would come against the applicant to make the statement either before the Investigating agency during investigation or before the court.
The court observed that taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the charge, the severity of the punishment, the seriousness of the crime. The position and status of the accused viz-a viz the victim/state and opportunity to approach the victim /witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice the possibility of tampering with the evidence and or the witnesses, obstructing the course of justice and attempting to do so, the possibility of repetition of the offence, the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges including frivolity of the charge, and the peculiar facts of each case and nature of supporting evidence, the accused does not deserves the concession of bail at this stage and it is settled law that at the time of consideration of bail application, it is neither desirable nor necessary to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive findings whether or not the accused has committed offence .What is to be seen is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation are prima facie true.
The court observed that in the present case the question of unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India in general and UT of J&K In particular is involved in the case in which the applicant herein is alleged to have played a key role. The investigation of the case is at its infancy and if the accused/applicant would be enlarged on bail, the course of justice would be thwarted. The application was rejected and be consigned to record after its due completion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
