TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

DCP summoned over probe gaps in Rohini attempt-to-murder case

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

A Delhi court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-West) to appear in person for clarifications in an ongoing attempt to murder case after lapses were found in the investigation.

Advertisement

The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rohini, Nisha Sahay Saxena, noted that although a charge sheet was filed on May 4, the original medico-legal certificate (MLC) of the injured had not yet been placed on record.

Advertisement

It further pointed out that the charge sheet was silent on the role of co-accused Sujal, who allegedly fired at the victim and remains untraced.

“Due to lapse on part of the investigation officer, the bail application of other accused persons is being delayed. The DCP is directed to appear in person before court for further clarifications in the matter,” the judge said.

The case stems from an FIR registered on February 3, at Jahangir Puri police station under attempt to murder charges. Three accused identified as Harsh alias Achu, Ankit alias Niranjan, and Girish alias Khema, were arrested and remain in judicial custody, with their bail pleas pending since July.

Advertisement

Appearing for Ankit, advocate Ravi submitted that his client has been kept in custody while the main accused, Sujal, had not been arrested or even declared a proclaimed offender. He argued that Ankit’s implication rested largely on a disclosure statement, while the real enmity lay between Sujal and the complainant, both of whom had multiple cases pending. The hearing has been adjourned to September 18, when the statement of the injured is also to be recorded.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement