SHILLONG, Dec 27: The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class has rejected the bail application of city-based businessman Suresh P Singh, who was arrested recently by the police on the charge of stabbing his wife, Poonam Yadav.
The bail application, filed under Section 437 of CrPC, was rejected through an order issued on December 22. The sessions judge had rejected the bail application on December 19. It was rejected thrice before.
The court said the basis for the rejection of the previous bail applications was on grounds that the statements of the victim and the victim’s daughter (eyewitness) indicated that there was a serious offence against the accused.
The additional public prosecutor, R Swer pointed out that the sessions judge rejected the bail application for the release of the accused on merit on December 19.
The order stated that the present bail application was moved on grounds that the business of the petitioner (accused) has ground to a halt and he has not been able to earn.
“Consequently, his two children who are studying outside the state, have been put into jeopardy as regards their education and academic expenses. Consequently, this bail application has been filed seeking that he be released on bail so that he can take care of his family with conditions that he will not disturb or harm or come near the victim in any manner whatsoever,” the court order said.
The court referred to the additional PP pointing out that a prima facie case exists against the accused, adding that this can be discerned from the medical reports, which said the victim had to undergo surgery and was admitted in hospital for several days.
The order further stated that the daughter of the victim was an eyewitness to the incident.
“Her statement has also been recorded and is clear in what it describes. Once there is a prima facie case and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has perpetrated the offence as alleged, the bar under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 437, CrPC comes into operation and this Court cannot release the accused on bail,” the order further stated.
“In this particular case, the grounds advanced do not satisfy the requirement of the provisos especially seen in light of the alleged history between the victims and accused,” the order added.
During the hearing on December 19, the investigating officer (IO) of the case objected to the grant of bail on the ground that the accused may threaten the witness of the case and that the accused and victim are cohabiting in the same house and there is every possibility that the accused will continue to commit an offence.
The IO also said there are three cognizable cases registered against the accused person pending investigation.
The case is pending to recover the knife used in the commission of the crime, the court order stated.
The court perused the statement of the victim and the victim’s daughter recorded by a magistrate. Considering the statement of the victim and her daughter and the medical report of the victim, there is reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed the offence as alleged, the court observed.
“Although the case is pending only for recovery of the weapon of assault which is yet to be recovered, the accused and the victim being husband and wife and there appears to be frequent discord between them which led to the situation in the present case, though the accused is 60 years of age, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused person at this stage. Hence, the bail application is rejected,” the court order said.
