A Delhi court has granted two months interim bail to an accused in the murder case of Ponty Chadha and his younger brother Hardeep on "humanitarian ground".
Narender Ahlawat, who worked for Ponty Chadha as a manager, was released on interim bail by additional sessions judge VK Yadav saying, "he deserves indulgence on humanitarian ground" as he is wheelchair-bound, and therefore needs "proper medical treatment".
The judge also imposed certain conditions which include that Ahlawat will not influence witnesses in any manner or leave Delhi without the court's permission.
"... Keeping in view the medical condition of the applicant (Ahlawat), which reflects as per the latest report from jail hospital that instead of recovery the complications are increasing and affecting the psychological and neurological health of Ahlawat..."
"... Ahlawat is still on the wheelchair, unable to move... Thus Ahlawat apparently deserves indulgence at least on this count. As such, looking at all these facts and on humanitarian ground, he seems to deserve proper medical treatment and to facilitate it, he is admitted to interim bail, for getting himself treated at hospital of his choice, on furnishing personal bond and two surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each for two months," the judge said.
Ponty Chadha and Hardeep, who had an alleged property dispute, were killed in a shootout at a Chhattarpur farmhouse in south Delhi on November 17, last year. Twenty-two people, including sacked Uttarakhand minority panel chief SS Namdhari have been named in the charge sheet filed in the case.
Namdhari and his PSO Sachin Tyagi face charges of murder, attempt to murder and other offences under the IPC besides cases under the Arms Act. Ponty has also been named as an accused in the charge sheet.
Ahlawat, in jail since February 14, had sought bail saying there is nothing against him which may connect with the offence in any manner.
"He was merely an employee of Ponty and was unfortunately present at the spot," advocate KK Manan argued, adding that the accused was not part of any conspiracy as he could not have been beneficiary in any manner.
Taking note of the defence counsel's submissions, the judge observed that on a perusal of the record, it appears that the presence of the applicant at the spot is beyond any doubt.