Follow Us
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 17
A local court dismissed the bail application of Sunita, an accused in the HCS Judicial paper leak case. However, the police informed the court that the Delhi address given by her was found to be incorrect on verification.
The Chandigarh Police in their reply to the bail plea mentioned that during the Vigilance inquiry of the case by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sunita had mentioned her address of Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi, which was verified and found to be incorrect during the investigation of the UT police.
In addition to this, Sunita was arrested from the house of her sister at Gemini Park, Najafgarh, Delhi. Not only this, the house of the brother of Sunita who was reportedly staying at Roshanpura, Najafgarh, as tenant was also found vacant and his present whereabouts are not known.
The police also mentioned that if Sunita is granted bail, she may threaten the witnesses and may tamper with evidence to affect the investigation. She can also jump the bail as her permanent or present address is not known. The UT police pleaded that in view of the gravity of the offence, Sunita’s application of regular bail should be dismissed.
The defence counsel of Sunita had stated that earlier the bail of Sunita was rejected as Balwinder Sharma was not arrested and the police had to obtain documents from the Supreme Court relating to the results of the paper that were sealed by the court. However, now since the chargesheet has also been filed in the case, there is no purpose of keeping Sunita in custody. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 29.
After hearing the arguments of both counsels, the court dismissed the bail application of Sunita observing that mere presenting of challan in the case is not enough to grant bail as the nature of offence is also serious.
The court also observed that the record of conversations that have been produced as evidence by the investigating team also show a link between Sunita and Sushila. It also observed that the case pertains to the High Court, an institution that is responsible for running of the administration too. The court concluded that if granted bail, the accused may tamper with the evidence of the case.
Address found to be incorrect
The Chandigarh Police in their reply to the bail plea mentioned that during the Vigilance inquiry of the case by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sunita had mentioned her address of Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi, which was verified and found to be incorrect during the investigation of the UT police.
2
4
7
8