Sonepat sisters’ case: Accused denied permission to sit in army written exam | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 24, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Sonepat sisters’ case: Accused denied permission to sit in army written exam

chandigarh Updated: Jan 08, 2015 10:16 IST

Kuldeep Hooda, one of the three accused in the alleged molestation of Sonepat sisters on November 28, seems to be paying the heavy cost even before the court delivers its verdict in the case, as the army has denied him the right to sit in the written exam after his successful physical and medical tests.

When Kuldeep, a native of Asan village in this district, on Wednesday approached district army recruitment office (ARO) to collect his roll number for the written exam scheduled on February 1, he was denied the same over the molestation case against him in Rohtak court. He, along with Deepak and Mohit of the same village, were booked under section 354 (outraging modesty of woman) of Indian Penal Code and were arrested but later given bail.

Notably, in the army recruitment drive in October-November at Jhajjar, Kuldeep and Deepak, another accused in the same case, had cleared the physical test.

The former passed his medical examination and hence became eligible to sit for the written test, while the latter became ineligible to sit in written test after he failed in medical test.

An officer in ARO confirmed that Kuldeep has been denied the chance to sit in written exam. Regarding the reason behind the decision, he said that they had received a letter from civil administration, requesting them not to let the accused sit in examination. Also, the media attention that this case received led them to take the decision to disallow him, he added.

He further said that as long as the matter is sub-judice, the applicant cannot be allowed to sit in the army recruitment test in future as well.

Meanwhile, Sandeep Rathee, advocate for the accused, said that the army decision to disallow his client to sit in the test implies that he was guilty of offence even before the court judgement.