Attack on Advocate: Bail denied to wife, others -
Attack on Advocate: Bail denied to wife, others
Posted 16 Nov 2017 03:55 PM


1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mohan Singh Parihar rejected the anticipatory bail application of Kusum Gupta, wife of Ramesh Chander Gupta, mother in law of victim, Amisha Gupta, daughter of Ramesh Chander Gupta, Amit Gupta, son of Late Mohan Lal Gupta and Ajay Gupta, son of Late Banarsi Dass Gupta, in a case of murderous assault on Advocate Vishal Mahajan, son of Advocate M.P Gupta.

The Court after hearing the counsel for the applicants D S Saini whereas Advocate Aseem Sawhney, Counsel for the victim/ complainant and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State rejected the pre-arrest bail application in FIR registered at Police Station Channi Himmat Jammu under Sections 307, 452 and 147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Acts.

It may be mentioned that the FIR has named as many as six accused, who entered the house of aforesaid Advocate with intention to kill him and caused grievous injuries to him. Out of these 6 accused only two had been arrested by the Police namely Ankit Gupta and Rohit Gupta, brothers in law of victim who remained in police custody and jail for 16 days and were later bailed out by the CJM Jammu. Rest of the accused moved an anticipatory bail application through their Advocate D S Saini.

The complainant/ victim has also filed an application for permission to be heard and oppose bail through Advocate A K Sawhney and Advocate Aseem Sawhney with Utkarsh Pathania, Shiv Dev Thakur, Anil Sharma, Ila Sharma and Anil Kumar, Advocates.

Court observed that the prosecution in its objections has opposed the bail of the applicants on the grounds that the applicants are involved in the commission of a heinous crime against the society and public at large for which the applicants need to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and the investigation in the case is at initial stage and the statements of material witnesses are yet to be recorded and the arrest of the applicants are required for their custodial interrogation in order to conduct the fair investigation in the case.

Leave a comment: (Your email will not be published)