E-Paper
PG fire case: Court dismisses accused’s revision petition for bail
Advocate argued that as per Section 167 of the CrPC, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in case the probe is not completed within 60 or 90 days of custody
The Chandigarh district court dismissed the revision petition filed by Nitesh Bansal, an accused in the Sector-32 PG fire case, wherein three girls had died. The tragedy had struck on February 23.
Nitesh, who had taken the place on rent from accused Gaurav Aneja, was running the paying guest accommodation (PG) along with Nitish Popli since August 2018 without registering it with the UT estate office. The trio has been booked under Sections 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
On June 20, the court of judicial magistrate first class Meenakshi Gupta had dismissed Bansal’s application for default bail following which he had filed a revision petition in the district court, seeking to set aside the trial court’s order.
Bansal’s advocate said: “The chargesheet has been submitted by the investigation agency but the investigation is not complete. So, it’s an incomplete chargesheet which has been filed by the police, who could not complete the investigation because of Covid-19 pandemic.”
“As per Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in case the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days of custody. In this case, the chargesheet is incomplete, so he liable to get default bail,” he said.
However, the court dismissed the revision petition on Wednesday.
His regular bail plea had also been dismissed by the court of additional district and sessions judge Rajesh Sharma on July 17.
