Chandigarh stalking: Vikas Barala denied bail for third time
The defence argued that the case had a “manipulated first-information report (FIR)” and that the statements given by Varnika Kundu and her father, VS Kundu, had contradictions.punjab Updated: Oct 23, 2017 22:36 IST
The court of judicial magistrate first class (JMIC) Barjinder Pal Singh denied bail for the third time to Vikas Barala, 23, son of Haryana BJP chief Subhash Barala, the main accused in the stalking case of disc jockey Varnika Kundu, the daughter of IAS officer VS Kundu.
The detailed copy of Monday’s order is awaited, but the bail was denied on the grounds are that the mere filing of the challan and framing of charges was not enough to grant relief to the accused. Barala had also been denied bail on September 13, when the court order had referred to him as a Roadside Romeo. The first time he was denied bail was on August 29.
The defence counsel Rabinder Pandit had argued the chargesheet has been filed in the matter and the investigation was also completed so the custody of Vikas Barala is not required and hence his client should be granted bail. The defence also argued that the case had a “manipulated first-information report (FIR)” and that the statements given by Varnika Kundu and her father, VS Kundu, had contradictions.
Elaborating, the defence counsel said that in her statement before the magistrate, Varnika had not mentioned that there was an attempt to kidnap her. Her father later stated that Varnika was in a state of shock at the time. Pandit went on to question that if it is mentioned in the complaint and the FIR that there was an attempt to kidnap her, then why did Varnika not state this in front of the magistrate.
In his arguments, the counsel for the prosecution, Manu Kakkar, said that the mere filing of the chargesheet against the accused was no ground to grant bail and it did not change the circumstances. He also cited a number of Supreme Court judgments to support his line of argument.
“The grant of bail to the accused could lead to witnesses being influenced and affect the trial,” it was also argued.