Jammu, Aug 06 (JNF): The additional sessions judge, Jammu, today rejected the bail application of the accused in the Nanak Nagar Shiv Temple desecration case.
Rajinder Singh, son of Sugriv Singh, and Suresh Kumar, son of Algo Ram were challaned by police in the case.
On June 16, 2016, Gurbachan Singh, son of Harbans Singh of Nanak Nagar, had trespassed into a Shiv Temple at Khalsa Chowk and allegedly indulged in the act of desecration. The Gandhi Nagar police had registered a case in this connection under section 295 of RPC. Statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of CrPC and material witnesses under section 164-A of CrPC.
Gurbachan had entered the temple at about 4.30 pm while talking to someone on his mobile phone and ‘disrespected’ the idols, besides showering abuses on the women who were doing satsang. He was telling somebody on his phone that he was on the job and his payment of Rs 500 be kept ready. Temple priests -- Pawan Sharma and Romesh Sharma -- and the women tried to stop him, but he manhandled them. He was later nabbed by police.
From his call details, it became known to police that while ‘disrespecting’ the idols, the accused was speaking to one Rajinder Singh, son of Sugreev Singh. He had earlier spoken to one Suresh Kumar, son of Algu, a tantrik. Suresh was alleged to have told Gurbachan that he could be cured only if he disrespected the deities. Therefore, Gurbachan, with the connivance of Rajinder and Suresh, indulged in the act of desecration. Accordingly, police had booked Gurbachan under sections 295, 296, 354 and 120-B of RPC and petitioners -- Rajinder and Suresh -- under section 120-B of RPC. The final report was filed under section 173 of CrPC.
Additional sessions judge Rajesh Sekri, after hearing the two sides, observed that the petitioners were involved in the alleged commission of special offences and in view of section 497-B of CrPC, they could not be released on bail unless the court was satisfied that there was a reasonable ground for believing that he was not guilty of such offences.
In the present case, the petitioners were prima facie involved in the commission of special offences and there was no reasonable ground for believing that they were not guilty of the offences they had been charged with, the court said. With these observations, the court rejected their bail application.
|
