news details |
|
|
| Murder accused denied bail | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 6: The high court today rejected the bail application of a man who was allegedly involved in the killing the husband of his lover.
Sunil Singh, the husband of Surekha Devi, had set up two shops at Nud in Samba district and engaged the accused for driving his van. As Sunil later got appointed as a driver in SRTC and was allotted SRTC Truck No JK02Y/0170, he handed over the business of his shops to his wife and the accused. On February 7, 2012 the body of Sunil was found lying by the side of the national highway at Kanthpur. His SRTC truck was found parked near his body.
A case in this connection was registered at Samba police station under section 302/34 of RPC. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner and Surekha had allegedly developed illicit relations and in order to continue them, they in pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by them, committed the murder of Sunil when he was sleeping in his house on the night of February 6, 2012. To mislead public, they later threw his dead body by the national highway at Kanthpur.
The court observed that "it hardly needs to be stated that statements of a prosecution witness recorded at the investigation stage can be used for contradicting the testimony of that witness before the court in a prescribed manner and effect of contradictions and improvements comes up for consideration while appreciating the evidence after trial. For releasing an accused involved in the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, like an offence under section 302 of RPC, the court, having regard to entire record of the case, must find reasons to believe that accused was not involved in the commission of the offence. Such a situation does not exist in this case, having regard to the evidence recorded by the court, more particularly testimony of prosecution witness Romal Singh and the evidence yet to be recorded and bail is also sought on the ground, what is said to be, delay in trial. It has been noticed that by the time of filing of this application, evidence of 13 out of 30 witnesses had been recorded. The trial court has explained the happenings during the intervening period and in no case time duration till date makes out a case for releasing the petitioner on bail on that score.
With these observations, the court rejected the bail application. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
