A Delhi court on Monday sent former Delhi law minister Jitender Singh Tomar to 14 days in Tihar jail, dismissing his bail plea “considering the gravity of the allegations against him as a public servant”.
Extending Tomar’s judicial custody and dismissing his bail plea, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Tarun Yogesh observed, “Considering the stage of investigation, use of fake law degree and document for getting enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi, coupled with the fact that offence under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC is involved in the case and co-accused/accomplice who might have facilitated the commission of crime are yet to be apprehended, I am not inclined to admit the accused, Jitender Singh Tomar, to bail.”
“Considering the gravity of the allegations against him as a public representative and being an elected MLA, use of alleged fake documents for getting enrolled as an advocate, the bail application is dismissed,” the judge said.
- Bawana fire: Court rejects anticipatory bail plea of co-accused
- Dinakaran-EC bribery case: Delhi HC dismisses middleman’s bail plea
- AIADMK-EC bribery case: Delhi HC reserves order on middleman’s bail plea
- Fake degree case: Tomar’s custody extended as cops probe Delhi man
- Fake degree case: Jitender Tomar withdraws bail plea
- Jitender Singh Tomar faces expulsion, ‘misled’ CM Arvind Kejriwal
During proceedings in the court, the police argued against Tomar’s bail plea, saying that he might try to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses and that he had allegedly forged an RTI reply of Avadh University, which showed that being an MLA, he was an influential person.
“Tomar was in regular touch with university and college officials when the issue of fake degree had surfaced. At this stage, we cannot say that the accused has forged documents but he has been the ultimate beneficiary of the entire thing,” Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Kumar Shrivastava argued.
He also opposed the AAP leader’s bail plea that he had to attend the Delhi Assembly session. Shrivastava argued that the law did not permit the offender to be treated differently.
Advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for Tomar, argued that the case was entirely based on documentary evidence. He said Tomar’s release would not hamper the probe but assist the police in apprehending other accused.