Why court said no to Lokesh’s police remand: Case diary not produced,already chargesheetedhttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/why-court-said-no-to-lokeshs-police-remand-case-diary-not-produced-already-chargesheeted/

Why court said no to Lokesh’s police remand: Case diary not produced,already chargesheeted

Finding “no merit” in the application moved by the National Investigation Agency seeking police remand of Lokesh Sharma — eight months after his arrest in the Samjhauta blast case — a Panchkula court on Wednesday had declined the request on the ground that the NIA has already filed a chargesheet against Sharma.

Finding “no merit” in the application moved by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking police remand of Lokesh Sharma — eight months after his arrest in the Samjhauta blast case — a Panchkula court on Wednesday had declined the request on the ground that the NIA has already filed a chargesheet against Sharma.

The other ground based on which the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) Kanchan Mahi declined the request was the non-production of “police file” relating to interrogation of Kamal Chauhan — a co-accused — by the NIA. “It is pertinent to mention here that when asked to produce the police file (jimni) relating to investigation and interrogation of Kamal Chauhan,the court was informed that it is lying at Delhi,” reads the one-page order. The court added that “under these circumstances,it could not be verified”. “It is relevant to note here that prosecution has already furnished charge sheetagainst Aseemanand and Lokesh Sharma,” stated the ADJ.

The judge also observed that the application seeking police remand of Sharma,who was arrested on June 16,2011,has been moved at a stage when the case is “fixed for consideration of framing of charges”.

Special Public Prosectuor for NIA,Advocate R K Handa,had relied upon Section 43 (d) of Unlawful Activities Act to demonstrate that police remand can be sought even after an accused has been remanded to judicial custody. Showing little conviction,the Court ruled: “In my opinion,Section 43 (d) of the Unlawful Activities Act is of no help as the same is applicable in cases where investigation is pending.”