Bail plea of retired DySP and children rejected in Nehru Nagar firing case: Court notes - Prima facie serious crime against the accused, a person with knowledge of the law fired

A case under sections of the BNS and Arms Act was recently registered at the Satellite Police Station in Ahmedabad against retired DySP Ashok Singh Chauhan, his son Siddharaj and daughter Khyati. They filed an application in the Ahmedabad City Sessions Court seeking bail. However, the court rejected the plea. In self-defense, he fired at the ground with a revolver It was submitted in the court on behalf of Ashok Singh Chauhan that the petitioner is completely innocent and has been wrongly implicated in the case. The applicant is a retired DySP. Some anti-social elements tried to illegally occupy his land and threatened and abused his family members. Despite informing the police through the 112 number, the help did not reach on time, the petitioner fired on the ground with his licensed revolver in self-defence, fearing for his life and that of his family. The intention of the murder was not just to drive away the mischievous elements No one was injured in the incident, which proves that their intention was not to kill anyone, but only to drive away the mischievous elements. There is no recovery pending now as the weapon used in the crime is licensed and has been deposited at the police station. Hitesh, who is doing business in partnership with the petitioner, has made this false complaint to tarnish the image of the petitioner by extorting money from others. 2 rounds were fired targeting the complainant On the other hand, the public prosecutor and the prosecution argued that the accused had come in his luxury car as part of a pre-planned conspiracy and fired five rounds from a pistol in a public place, out of which 2 rounds were aimed at the complainant. Five empty cartridges have been recovered from the spot in the presence of the punches. Apart from this, it is clear from the CCTV footage and statements of witnesses that the accused had hurled abuses and played an active role in the crime. The accused may tamper with evidence by intimidating witnesses Since the accused is a former police officer and an influential person, if he is granted bail, he can intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence. The accused has also been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the past and disciplinary action was taken against them. Bail should not be granted as the investigation is at a very crucial stage in the case. The court did not agree to grant regular bail to the accused After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court noted that the incident of the accused firing 5 rounds from his licensed pistol was very serious. Even though the defense described it as self-defense, the prosecution alleges that two rounds were fired at them. At this stage, in view of the gravity of the offence and the crucial stage of investigation ongoing, the Court in exercise of its discretionary power is not inclined to grant regular bail to the accused. The petitioner was wrongly implicated On the other hand, in the bail application filed by the children of the retired DySP, it was submitted that the petitioners are completely innocent. The entire dispute is related to the land in which he has been falsely implicated as part of a pre-planned conspiracy to defame him. The applicants are only 21 and 25 years old and both are students. They have been made accused only because of their accidental presence at the scene, they have no active role in the crime. Applicants have no criminal history Some mischievous elements formed an illegal association and came to illegally occupy such a disputed land in vehicles and abused the petitioners present there. Despite calling the police, the police did not reach on time, the retired DySP came with a licensed revolver to protect his family. They only fired on the ground, did not intend to kill anyone and no one was injured in the incident. The petitioners have no criminal history. He was fully aware of his father's criminal intentions The public prosecutor and the prosecution's counsel argued that the names of the petitioners are clearly in the FIR. The main accused, a retired DySP, despite being aware of the law, came in a luxury car as part of a pre-planned conspiracy and fired 5 rounds in a public place, out of which 2 rounds were aimed directly at the complainant. The petitioners abused the complainant at the time of the incident and threatened that their father would come with a pistol and blow them all up. This shows that they were fully aware of the criminal intent of the father coming with the weapon. Punishment of up to 10 years in this offence CCTV footage and statements of witnesses prove that the accused used to roam around with iron pipes in their hands and make threats. In the presence of the commissions, 5 empty cartridges were seized from the iron road and the spot. Since the accused's father is a former top officer and influential person in the police department, if the accused are granted bail, they can tamper with the evidence and intimidate witnesses or the complainant. The offence carries a jail term of up to 10 years and the investigation is still at a delicate stage. Court refuses to grant bail to petitioners After hearing both sides, the court noted that the allegations against the accused were prima facie serious in nature. The accused were aware of the criminal act as they had already threatened the complainant that the father was coming with a pistol. The investigation in the case is currently underway and is at a very crucial stage. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, circumstances and evidence, the court in exercise of its discretionary power has refused to grant bail to the petitioners.