news details |
|
|
| SI paper scam: CJM rejects bail pleas of 2 accused | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 5: CJM Jammu Anjum Ara on Thursday rejected the bail applications of Sulinder Kumar and Bajinder Singh who were challaned by the CBI in SI paper leakage scam.
While rejecting the bail applications, the CJM Jammu observed that accused Sulinder Kumar entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Bajinder Singh and other accused persons.
In pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, he arranged hotels for the stay of the accused and for arranging venues for providing leaked question papers to candidates at Karnal.
He booked the hotel Royal Hut. He was present at Royal Hut hotel when candidates were taken inside the hotel and was aware that these were candidates and not officials of the Horticulture Department. He was in regular touch with accused Bajinder Singh through mobile. Documents seized from hotel Kurukshetra Haveli reveal that booking was done by him and his known person Sudhir Singh. The CJM Jammu further observed that the offences involved in the present case impact the whole society especially the meritorious students/candidates whose future is ruined by such unfair methods. Such offences have an impact on the social and economic wellbeing of the society.
Such socio-economic offences need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds, also effecting the career of students and economy of the country are considered as grave offences. Such offences also affect the future career of the young generation and meritorious candidates of the country.
The accused persons who are involved in grave socio economic offences being influential can tamper with evidence and hamper/frustrate further investigation if released on bail.
Further investigation of the case is still going on and the involvement of many more accused is yet to be ascertained by the investigating agency as such the release of accused at this stage will hamper the investigation.
Thus the accused are not found entitled for any leniency of bail at this stage. The arguments put forth by the counsel for petitioners cannot be considered while deciding bail applications which can be looked into in the main case during trial. With these observations, the court rejected the bail applications. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
