news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of two jewelers, withdraws interim bail | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 10- Rejecting bail application of two jewelers against whom the police have
registered a case under section 411 (purchase of stolen property), the 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul today also withdrew the interim bail
earlier granted in favour of the petitioners.
While rejecting the bail application, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge referred the police report from police stations Bahu-Fort, City, Peermitha, Pacca Danga, Gandhi Nagar, Janipur and Police Post Narwal which reveals that petitioners are involved in FIR NO 17, 31, 47, 51, 67, 91 u/s 454/380 RPC and accused Ravi Kumar has committed series of thefts at various places and after stealing gold used to sell same to accused petitioner’s Rajesh Kumar's shop in presence and knowledge of petitioner No 2 Rattan Lal against whom offence u/s 411 RPC have been established. It was further revealed in the report that said stolen gold is yet to be recovered; the petitioners have not complied with the direction of this Court for appearing before concerned Investigating Officer for investigation purposes but have only once appeared for investigation. It is further stated that petitioners have purchased stolen gold which is yet to be recovered.
According to the Additional Public Prosecutor Ravinder Sharma that gold ornaments weighing about 95.5 Tolas is to be recovered. The petitioners used to purchase stolen gold from thieves. The accused petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and opposed the anticipatory bail. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners/ accused are carrying lesser punishments. The petitioners when appeared before IO for investigation purpose were beaten severally by police in respect of whom they filed complaint against IO which has been forward for enquiry. Upon this, the Court observed that it appears that previously petitioners have moved bail application in FIR 30/2008 which was dismissed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge Jammu and thereafter they moved the bail application before High Court and got interim bail which bail application is still pending before the High Court. So far as FIR 30 is concerned the High Court has granted interim bail to petitioners so no order with regard to said FIR can be passed by this Court. So far as other FIRs are concerned it is stated that stolen property, which is stated to be in the possessions of petitioners/ accused is yet to be recovered which is only possible after custodial interrogation. The bail application moved by the petitioners in FIR No 17, 31, 47, 51, 67, and 91 is dismissed and the interim bail granted in favour of the petitioners is also withdrawn, the Court ordered. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
