New Delhi [India], September 26 : The Rohini Court has rejected the third bail plea of a man accused of forcibly administering an acid-like substance into the mouth of his own wife, noting the gravity of the allegations and his previous conduct of jumping interim bail.
Additional Sessions Judge Richa Manchanda dismissed the bail application of Jitender alias Jony, accused in a 2018 case registered at Shahbad Dairy police station under Sections 323, 342, 326-A, 328 and 34 of the IPC.
The prosecution case, as recorded by the court, is that Jitender, along with his co-accused persons, forcibly administered a “TEZAB-like substance” into the mouth of the victim. Charges under Sections 323/34, 342/34, 328/34 and 326-A/34 IPC were framed against the accused on November 18, 2019.
During the hearing, Advocate Aditi Drall appeared for the victim, Monica, while Additional Public Prosecutor J.S. Malik appeared for the State. The State strongly opposed the bail plea, submitting that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature.
The accused, through his counsel, claimed that he had been falsely implicated. It was submitted that Jitender was married to the victim and that a matrimonial dispute arose after an unidentified person allegedly contacted him, claiming that he had married the victim. The defence also referred to a criminal complaint against the unidentified person and a domestic violence case filed by the victim against the accused and his family members.
The defence further submitted that Jitender had been in judicial custody since June 28, 2018, that the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence and that the victim had already been examined. It was argued that he was no longer required for custodial interrogation.
The court, however, noted that Jitender had earlier been granted interim bail but had jumped bail and was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender. It further noted that co-accused Suman was arrested seven to eight years after registration of the FIR and was also declared a proclaimed offender, while the brother of Jitender remained absconding.
The court observed that the trial was presently at the stage of prosecution evidence and said that, considering the past conduct of Jitender and his co-accused, the possibility of him jumping bail could not be ruled out. His release, the court said, could further delay the trial.
“Keeping in view of the above discussion and also considering the severity and the gravity of the offence as well as the seriousness of the allegations,” the court said it was not inclined to grant bail to Jitender and dismissed his application.
The court clarified that its observations would not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.