Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 27: Principal Sessions Judge Kathua, Vinod Chatterji Koul today denied pre-arrest bail to former Minister Manohar Lal Sharma.
According to the police case, on December 20, Kuljit Singh, DySP (DAR) along with other police personnel was conducting patrolling in connection with the Assembly elections. In the meanwhile, he received information that 60 to 70 workers of Congress party were campaigning at Kohag, which was objected to by the workers of other parties.
DySP immediately reached the spot and in order to defuse the tension he asked the workers of all the political parties to leave the spot. Though workers of other parties adhered to the request of DySP, workers of Congress party remained adamant to hold rally.
In the meanwhile, Dr Manohar Lal Sharma along with Sarpanch Ajit Kumar, son of Munshi Ram, Romy, son of Taj Din of Dungara and other workers of Congress Party reached there and attacked the DySP with sticks due to which the police officer suffered injuries on his head as well as on his arms.
At the instigation of Dr Manohar Lal Sharma, workers even attacked the police party with stones, which led to injuries to constable Mast Ram.
On the complaint of DySP DAR, FIR No. 187 under Sections 307, 353, 336, 323, 147 and 148 RPC was registered at Police Station Billawar. Later, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 164-A CrPC, who supported the version of the complainant.
Public Prosecutor B B Gupta appearing for the State, while opposing the pre-arrest bail application of Dr Manohar Lal Sharma, submitted that offences have been established against the accused Dr Manohar Lal Sharma and eleven others but all are absconding and required by the police for investigation.
“Recovery of weapons of offence is yet to be effected”, he further submitted.
After hearing Senior Advocate M K Bhardwaj with Advocate Sushil Gupta for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor BB Gupta for the State, Principal Sessions Judge observed, “there is nothing on record to show that the accusations against the accused/petitioner stem out from any ulterior motive to humiliate or harass him, but allegations, prima facie, show that offence alleged has been committed by the petitioner/accused”.
“The nature of accusations is serious and in case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest that will give a wrong signal to the society. The offences are serious in nature and considering the police report and the evidence collected so far, one cannot say that the allegations are false or petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case”, the court said.
With these observations, court found that discretion as provided under Section 497-A CrPC can be exercised in this case. “No case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest”, the court said and rejected the application.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel