|
A Delhi court recently granted bail to a person who allegedly offered a bounty of Rs one crore for cutting the tongue of Nupur Sharma, former spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The accused, who is said to be the chief of Bhim Sena, allegedly posted a tweet in this connection.
Patiala House Court on Saturday granted bail to the accused Satpal Tanwar noting that the FIR was registered without seeing the alleged video and the direction given by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case was not complied with. Duty Magistrate Dev Saroja granted bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 and a surety bond in the same amount. The court has imposed several conditions while granting bail to the accused. The Court observed, "The perusal of case diary shows, FIR was registered first on June 9, and after analysing the video, section 153A (Promoting enmity between groups) was added later. It shows that there was haste in registration of FIR on the part of police." Advocate Mehmood Pracha, counsel for accused Satpal Tanwar, submitted that the accused was falsely implicated in this case and after his arrest on June 16, 2022, he was subjected to physical torture. Therefore the accused had been admitted to RML Hospital. The counsel for the accused also submitted that the medical condition of the accused is such that if he remained in custody he is most likely to die. He is sick and infirm, therefore he deserves to be released on bail. He also showed a video to the court in which the accused was seen kept in a chain in the hospital. The offence under section 153A is punishable with a punishment of three years imprisonment. Despite it, a prior notice to arrest was not served to the accused as required by the guidelines laid by the apex court in the Arnesh Kumar case. On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation is at the initial stage and the allegations against the accused are serious in nature. He also submitted that Section 153A was added to the FIR after seeing the full video. For the recovery of the mobile of the accused and the original video, the bail application of the accused should be dismissed. He further submitted that the notice was not served as the address of the accused could not be verified. (ANI)
|
