Shoe hurling row: Court rejects bail applications of accused | punjab | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 31, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Shoe hurling row: Court rejects bail applications of accused

punjab Updated: Aug 23, 2014 07:11 IST
HT Correspondent
Shoe hurling row

The court of judicial magistrate Harijinder Singh rejected the bail applications of Bikram, Harvinder and Mahinderpal, accused of manhandling police officials and tearing off the uniform of one of them after hurling a shoe towards chief minister Parkash Singh Badal during a political conference at Issru on Independence Day.

Public prosecutor Sukhchain Singh, during the hearing of the case on Friday, argued that the entire episode was a criminal conspiracy planned in advance. He said the accused wanted instant fame and were Aam Aadmi Party activists. He also argued that the accused attacked policemen and tried to tear off their uniforms.

He said the accused did a recce of the location, which had been verified after tracking the mobile phone towers and that they were in touch with an MP from Aam Aadmi Party.

On the other hand, Rajiv Mehta, counsel for Bikram, argued that hurling a shoe was a mere symbolic way to show resentment and the shoe did not hurt anyone. He said the police had not presented any proofs against Bikram for attacking and misbehaving with police officials for which the accused had been booked.

Bikram's wife Nisha said they would apply for bail in the sessions court in Ludhiana. DIG Ludhiana range GS Dhillon said Hardeep and Taari were accused in the case, as per initial investigations, but their roles were yet to be verified. They were not arrested. Only if their involvement was confirmed, they would be arrested in the coming days.

The police had booked the accused under sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 355 (assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour a person), 353 (assault or criminal force with intent to deter public servant from his duty), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The police had added section 66 A of the Information technology Act against the accused later.