news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail application of two accused facing trial in murder case | | |
Jammu, November, 09-
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. Subhash Chander Gupta rejected the bail application of Darshan Gill and Suram Chand, who are facing trial along with accused Simon Gill for committing murder of Shopkeeper Shakti Gupta on February 4, 2002.
The allegations against the accused that they demanded money from the deceased on his refusal to pay the money they called the deceased from the shop and both the accused Suram Chand and Darshan Gill caught hold of the deceased, the accused Simon Gill inflicted 7/8 blows of Kirch on the deceased, who died on spot and accused ran away from the spot.
In the bail application the counsel appearing for the accused person submitted that the charges were framed in May 2002 and only in one of the witnesses were examined by the prosecution and thereafter the case was listed for recording of prosecution evidence on many times but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses. The special PP resisted the bail applications on the grounds that the offence is heinous, non-bailabale and punishable with life-imprisonment or death sentence. There is every-likelihood of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence and jumping the bail. Principal Sessions Judge hearing Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Sunil Sethi appearing for the state and Advocate P N Goja appearing for the petitioners observed that from the perusal of record that after recording the statement of Janak Raj on January 6, 2003, on February 8, 2003 and July 19, 2003, the other witnesses of the prosecution were recorded, on April 17, 2004, the statement of Suraj Parkash was recorded on May 21, 2005 while as statements of other prosecution witnesses were recorded on September 17, 2005. In the wake of statements of number of witnesses being recorded, the plea of the accused that no other witness except Janak Raj has been recorded is devoid of any force and is not tenable. The authorities cited by the Advocate of the accused are not applicable to the facts of present case as the authorities cited are full blow and authorities in which the accused have been acquitted after full fledge trial giving them the benefit of doubt and in the present case the evidence is in progress. As such no case for bail in favour of the accused is made out and their bail application is dismissed. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
