Last updated:
The court had noticed that the entire matter was not properly investigated after the police constable Virendra Singh filed a bail application in the court. The court rejected the bail application of the accused after the police had deliberately dismissed the CCTV footage.
Ahmedabad: Police constable Virendra Singh Padhariya filed a bail in the court in the Bopal area, 23 -year -old student Priyanku Jain’s murder case. It was mainly submitted that the complaint was delayed after the incident, no description of the accused, there was no dispute between the accused and the deceased before, there was no intention of murder, the accused has been arrested on suspicion. The photograph of the accused then came to the newspaper so that there was no evaluation of the identity parade. No CCTV has been seized at the scene of the incident, the court has the authority to grant bail so bail should be released.
The government lawyer, on the other hand, submitted that the accused was a policeman and was angry with a general dispute. The accused was then escaped, the accused has earlier registered a crime. The complainant is an eye -catching witness and has identified the accused in the identity parade. However, if the accused is released on bail, it should not be granted bail when the evidence is tampered with or the witness is likely to be fired. The court rejected the bail application, noting that the CCTV footage was to get more CCTV footage at the scene of the incident. However, the officer did not get it, so the court investigated DYSP Neelam Gauswamy and asked him to submit the details of his work on Songad. However, Neelam Gauswamy has not submitted any report. The court has decided to keep his screen shot on his screen shot by looking at the building in Google Street View.
The court had noted that the FSL officer had repeatedly urged the FSL officer to submit information to the FSL officer in connection with the CCTV footage, but the officer was present, giving notice of the proceedings of the Contemplation of Court, who was not present and was ready to investigate all the cameras. In addition, details of the different cameras at the scene. Thus, the investigating officer has obtained CCTV footage of only one place despite different cameras around the scene. Thus, important CCTV footage appears to have been obtained by the investigating officer.
Add. Sessions Judge P.M. Sayani directed that the crime against them should be given a complete guidance of the offense, so that the complainant was investigated according to that guidance. He can see. The police department and the government should submit such guidelines and send a copy to the court along with the complaint. It should be stated that the guidelines are examined as per the guidelines and the charge sheet should be done accordingly. Doing this type of operation can make the investigation more effective and accurate. In this case, the investigator of the appropriate investigating agency should investigate and submit the report to the court within 60 days. Besides, the court has directed a copy of the verdict to the Home Department, DGP, DSP Ahmedabad Village and DOP (Director of Prosecution).
The court, on the other hand, has also noted that the entire case does not appear to have been completed and the correct investigation of the incident. The accused is a policeman and the PI has not done any effective work until the important evidence was destroyed. The court noted in the verdict that the investigating officer had shown serious shortcomings and defects in his investigation. The investigating officer did not show all the details and full details of the case diary. No information was found in the case diary, when they arrived, what they investigated and at the end of the investigation did not show all the details present. Thus, the case should be investigated with another agency.
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
