New Delhi [India], January 27 : Special MCOCA judge at Patiala House court has recently denied bail to one Chadrashekhar Gupta accsued of reciving and selling of robbed luxury cars from the gang of Sharad Pandey.
It is alleged that Sharad Pandey's organised crime syndicate was involved in car lifting and selling them in North East India including Arunachal Pradesh. An FIR under sections of MCOCA was lodged against him and his gang in 2020.
Chandrashekhar Gupta was arrested in the MCOCA FIR lodged against Sharad Pandey. It is alleged that Gupta was allegedly involved in transfer of proceeds of crime through bank accounts of other members after selling of robbed cars received from the gang.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma rejected the bail plea of Chandrasekhar Gupta after considering the submissions and facts of the case.
In this case, charge sheet has been filed and charges have been framed. This case is at the stage of Prosecution evidence.
After considering the allegations against the court dismissed the bail plea and said in the order passed on January 23, " I find that accused is not entitled to bail, within the parameters of sec. 21 (4) (b) of MCOCA.
The special judge noted, " I find that allegations against accused are that he is involved in organized crime syndicate and was involved in car jacking of luxury vehicles in Delhi and NCR."
The court said that the allegations are supported by evidence in the shape of oral testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence besides confessions u/sec. 18 of MCOCA.
" The allegations are therefore not bald allegations. They are serious in nature. Possibility of accused fleeing away from justice and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. Viewed from those perspectives also, I find this bail application, to be meritless," ASJ Sharma said on January 23.
While rejecting the ba application the court also dismissed the contention of counsel for accsued saying that net result is that case laws cited by accused are distinguishable on facts. Therefore, they did not help the cause of accused and are discarded by me.
Counsel for accused argued that accused was discharged in other two cases. Besides that he argued that investigation with regard to money transferred from the account of accused is still pending.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor