Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 26: 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma has rejected the bail pleas of seven accused facing trial in the 2022 Gandhi Nagar dacoity case, observing that apprehensions of witnesses being influenced or intimidated have not yet been eliminated and that the case warrants an exception to the general rule favouring bail.
The six bail applications were filed by Harvinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Harpreet Singh Khalsa alias Amit Rana, Rajwinder Singh, Manjeet Singh alias Foji, Satwinder Singh alias Preet and Gurmanpreet Singh Kalsia in FIR No. 310/2022 of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, involving offences under Sections 395, 342, 120-B and 171 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act. The matter was heard by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Anoop Kumar Sharma.
According to the prosecution case, around nine to ten armed men, allegedly wearing J&K Police caps and jerseys, entered a house at Green Belt, Gandhi Nagar, on December 7, 2022, held the family and domestic helps hostage and allegedly took away cash of around Rs 12-15 lakh and other valuables. The prosecution has alleged that Harpreet Singh alias Amit Rana was the mastermind behind the occurrence.
The investigation, according to the order, relied upon CCTV footage, call detail records, recoveries of arms, ammunition, cash and jewellery, test identification proceedings and statements of witnesses. The prosecution also alleged that the accused had undertaken reconnaissance before the occurrence and that the family remained hostage for several hours during the alleged dacoity.
Counsel for the accused argued that they had remained in custody for more than three years, charges had already been framed and there had been delay in recording prosecution evidence. They also contended that their continued detention was unwarranted and that there was no sufficient material to justify further incarceration.
The prosecution opposed the pleas, contending that the accused were allegedly part of an organised group and that their release could create a risk of witnesses being influenced or the accused absconding.
The Court, however, noted that the plea regarding non-production of witnesses was not fully borne out from the record. It observed that prosecution witnesses had appeared on several dates but could not be examined for different reasons, and that PW-01 Sahib Aggarwal was ultimately examined on September 22, 2026, with his examination-in-chief almost concluded.
The Court further observed that Rakesh Aggarwal was a material and crucial prosecution witness and that the earlier concern regarding witnesses feeling apprehensive in deposing freely had not completely disappeared. It held that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown by the four accused whose earlier bail pleas had already been rejected.
While declining bail to the remaining accused as well, the Court observed that the deposition of important prosecution witnesses was underway and there existed a reasonable apprehension of interference with evidence or witnesses.
The Court remarked that though "grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception," certain cases require the Court to follow the exception, holding that the present matter fell in that category. All six bail applications were consequently dismissed.
Appearing counsels: Amarjeet Singh for Harvinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh; Mohit Gupta for Harpreet Singh and Gurmanpreet Singh; A.R. Khan & Associates for Rajwinder Singh and Manjeet Singh; Anil Sharma for Satwinder Singh; and Raj Kumar, APP, for the UT of J&K. (JNF) |
