Greater Kailash murder case
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 28: In the much publicized Greater Kailash murder case, Principal Sessions Judge Jammu YP Bourney has discharged Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandiyal and Raghunandan Singh alias Raghu on account of insufficiency of material against them and directed that they should be released from the custody immediately.
However, court framed charges against Parshotam Singh, Sheikh Mehmood IPS (retd), Sachin Patiyal, Ravinder Kumar Gupta, Davinder Pal Singh, Suraj Singh, Varun Kumar, Vikas Singh and Sandeep Charak with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 447, 427, 302, 307, 506, 147, 201 IPC.
After hearing PP Anil Magotra for the UT, the court observed, “the involvement of other accused persons namely Poonam Kumari, Jaipreet Singh alias Honey and Ghambir Singh against whom supplementary charge sheet has been filed but have not been arrested so far except accused Jaipreet Singh alias Honey Singh is also made out prima facie in the commission of offences”.
“The bail of accused Jaipreet Singh, who has been arrested but admitted to bail for minor offences and now is in the judicial custody in some other case, is cancelled. Consequently, the accused is ordered to be re-arrested and brought to trial along with other accused”, the court said, adding “non-bailable warrants be issued against accused Poonam Kumari, and Ghambir Singh and SSP Jammu shall ensure their arrest by next date of hearing”.
“The accused who are ordered to be charged for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302, 120-B etc IPC cannot be released on bail at this stage being involved in the commission of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. So, their bail applications stand dismissed accordingly and be made part of the record”, court said.
The court further observed, “it needs to be brought on record that In-charge Police Post Greater Kailash namely PSI Puneet Sharma along with his team of officials is stated to be present on spot right from the moment the victim party arrived. But he took no action and allowed the accused persons to assemble on spot at the first place and paid no heed to the repeated requests of the victim party which ultimately resulted into the loss of a precious human life”.
“Had this officer performed his official duty and intervened, the situation might have been altogether different. His conduct all along together with the clear allegations by the complainant party that he was hand in glove with the accused party lead to one and only inference that he had taken side and was helping the accused party in pursuing their goal”, the court said, adding “all these aspects have not been taken care of and investigated by the investigating agency. So, it is expected and hoped that further investigation into all these aspects is carried out and concluded at the earliest”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel