Sessions Judge Pathankot Dr. Tejwinder Singh disposed of a bail application of one of the suspect from Meerut and directed State that in case they intend to arrest suspects a five days notice may be given to the applicant.
Advocates A.K. Sawhney and Aseem Sawhney appeared for one of the accused. Advocate Aseem Sawhney addressed arguments on charge and urged the court that there are vital aspects left by the Crime Branch and investigation conducted is biased and public, lawyers and all those who are interested that real culprits be brought to book therefore demanded CBI enquiry. In the jam packed court, Advocate Aseem Sawhney addressed its arguments, cracked the prosecution story and dented it at the initial stage. Sawhney argued that court can’t be a mere post office just to receive the Challan and frame the charges as proposed by the police. Court is competent to discharge accused or any accused if no offence is made out after going through the evidence/ documents which can’t connect with the guilt.
Court passed the order and the relevant extract reads, “An application has been filed today by Rohit Verma, Advocate for disallowing the prosecution from filing additional documents, which primarily contained the ‘Call Detail Record’. The notice of the same has been issued to the prosecution and Santokh Singh Basra Special Public Prosecutor has stated that it is a part of record, since there was no Judicial Malkhana, at Pathankot and as the record was voluminous, therefore the same was taken back with a direction that the same shall be produced at the time of recording of evidence. This court is of the considered view that when justice is to be done to both the parties, then all the relevant record has to be gone perused this court. By not permitting the prosecution to bring on record the ‘Call Detail Record’ would deprive this court in reaching at a just decision. Moreover, since it is not any kind of personal litigation, rather is being prosecuted on behalf of State of Jammu & Kashmir therefore, keeping in view all these factors in mind, the prosecution is allowed to bring on record the ‘Call Detail Record’ pertaining to this trial. This application is accordingly disposed of” the Court observed.
Rohit Verma, Advocate addressed oral arguments qua the alleged role of Surinder Kumar (accused No.2). According to him no charge stands made out against Surinder Kumar. Highlighting all the material points he wishes to file written arguments, accordingly he is permitted to file the written arguments on the point of consideration of charge by tomorrow—June, 6, 2018.
Counsel for Parvesh Kumar (accused no.3) namely Ajay Sharma and Vikramjit Rai, Advocates have appeared and stated that they wish to file written arguments on behalf of Parvesh, accordingly they are permitted to file the written arguments on the point of consideration of charge by tomorrow-June 6, 2018. At this stage they have addressed oral arguments also on the point of consideration of charge.
Now, to come up tomorrow for submission of written arguments (if desired) along with oral arguments on the point of framing of charge. If no written arguments are submitted and no oral arguments are addressed by counsel for any of the accused, then it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say on the point of framing of charge and accordingly an appropriate order regarding framing of charge shall be passed by the court after going through the record of this trial and after hearing arguments of the remaining counsel for different accused,” the Court observed.