New Delhi, Aug 14 A Delhi court has denied bail for the second time to a woman accused of stealing bags from outside the courtrooms in the high court.
A Duty Metropolitan Magistrate had earlier this month dismissed Bala Saraswati's bail application.
Metropolitan Magistrate Kapil Gupta of Patiala House Courts denied bail this time observing that no ground of bail was made out in her favour.
Observing that the allegations against her are grave and serious in nature and that the co-accused has not yet been arrested, the magistrate said that the investigation appears to be still pending and the charge sheet has not yet been filed.
Furthermore, there is a possibility that the the accused may induce or threaten witnesses and could even tamper with the evidence. The accused is also involved in another case, the magistrate noted.
The accused had filed the first bail application on the ground that there has been no recovery of stolen property and that there is non-compliance of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complainant has argued that the accused is habitual of the conduct of picking up bags from outside the courtrooms in the Delhi High Court of Delhi and apart from the present case is alleged of the similar offence in at least one other FIR and there is also apprehension that she may have been involved in two other such instances.
The complainant has further argued that due to the actions of the accused, there is fear in leaving the bags outside the courtrooms of the high court among lawyers, and has said that there is serious lapse of security since the accused is not an advocate, having no ID card and yet she is seen in the compound of the high court premises without any entry pass.
It was argued that the complainant clearly identifies the accused carrying her bag which contained stolen property.
However, the accused has claimed that the woman seen in the footage is not her.
The state had countered the bail on the ground that the accused has been non co-operative throughout the investigation. After her identity was established, she was served notice to join the investigation, yet she failed and when the police officials reached her house, she refused to join the investigation and even resisted the police officers in the investigation.
The IO had stated that the accused refused to share her details and as much as failed to provide any identity proof of herself.
"Having considered the seriousness of the allegations, this court deems it appropriate to commit the accused to judicial custody since the apprehension of the IO is true that once released on bail, the accused may abscond and even threatened the witness or indulge in similar offence vide same modus operandi," the court had said.
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