The accused in the fire incident of Sector 32 paying guest, which claimed the lives of three girls, Nitish Bansal has filed a revision petition in the District Court of Chandigarh, seeking to set aside the order of the Trial Court which dismissed his application to get default bail, claiming that the Chandigarh police has filed incomplete chargesheet in the case filed against him, and two others. The matter is scheduled for hearing on July 23.
Bansal’s regular bail plea was dismissed on July 17 by the Court of ADJ Rajesh Sharma.
Meanwhile, the accused Bansal has moved to the Sessions Court, against the order of the trial Court of Meenakshi Gupta (JMIC), which dismissed his plea for default bail on June 20.
Accused Gaurav Aneja, Nitish Popli, and Nitesh Bansal have been booked under section 188, 304, 336, 34 of the IPC at PS 34, Chandigarh, for the alleged death of three girls in the PG at Sector 32, Chandigarh in February this year.
In his revision petition, Bansal has been submitted that “the perusal of the chargesheet so submitted by the investigating agency in the present case on April 21 would show that the same has not been filed after the completion of the investigation but incomplete chargesheet has been filed…initially the investigation of the present case was with the police of Police Station Sector – 34, Chandigarh and the Investigating Officer of that police station had recorded the last statement of witness on March 2and thereafter the investigation was entrusted to the Crime Branch and the perusal of the record would show that the Investigating Officer of the Crime Branch had not conducted any investigation in this case except recording the statement of the photographer…”
Bansal further submitted that the investigating agency has not followed law while filing the chargesheet and was not supposed to file the chargesheet when the investigation was pending and as such in view of section 167 CrPC the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, if the investigation is not completed within 60/90 days of the custody of the petitioner.
Bansal thus pleaded that the order passed by the court of JMIC is untenable under law.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines