Jp7games.jp7.com download app,lvjilislot login

Sultanpuri Case: Court Adjourns Bail Hearing Of Accused, Victim's Family Demands Murder Charge, What's Known So Far

Ashutosh Bhardwaj, one of the men in custody, allegedly misled the police and gave the car to the accused who did not have a driving licence.

Outlook Web Desk

Updated on: 10 January 2023 12:51 pm

Representative photograph of Delhi Police

A Delhi court on Tuesday adjourned the bail hearing of a man accused of shielding the five accused in the Sultanpuri case.?

In the early hours of the New Year's Day in Delhi, a car hit 20-year-old Anjali Singh who was on her scooter. The car then dragged Singh for around 12 kms from Sultanpuri to Kanjhawala. Her naked body was found in Delhi's Kanjhawala area.?

Five persons have so far been arrested who were in the car at the time. The man whose bail hearing was adjoured, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, is accused of shielding the five men in the car. Another man, Ankush Khanna, is also accused of shielding the five men.?

The five men in the car have been identified as Deepak Khanna (26), Amit Khanna (25), Krishan (27), Mithun (26), and Manoj Mittal.

Who is Ashutosh Bhardwaj, what's he accused of?

Ashutosh Bhardwaj is reportedly a friend of Deepak Khanna and Amit Khanna. It's alleged he gave them car to one of the accused despite him not having a driving licence.?

Following the accident, Deepak and Amit later left the vehicle at Ashutosh's residence in an accidental condition, according to a report.

The bail plea was adjourned to Thursday as the judge was on leave. ?

Bhardwaj's advocate had moved the plea on Monday, saying the offences were bailable in nature and the accused had cooperated with police after the incident.?? ?

Additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava had opposed the plea, saying Bhardwaj had handed over the car involved in the accident to another co-accused, who did not possess a driving licence.?

Delhi Police's Special Commissioner (Law and Order) Sagar Preet Hooda earlier said Ashutosh also misled the police by claiming that Deepak took the car when it was actuall Amit who had taken the car. Amit does not have a licence.?

Anjali Singh's family calls for murder charges

Anjali Singh's family on Tuesday held a protest outside Sultanpuri Police Station and demanded that the accused be charged with murder.?

A group of protesters sat outside the Sultanpuri Police Station and demanded that IPC section 302 (murder) be added in the FIR in the case. ?

Singh's kin had also earlier demonstrated outside the police station and called for capital punishment to the accused.?

The Delhi Police, however, said earlier that it's not a case of a murder as there was no link between the accused and the victim.?

The Delhi Police said there needs to be evidence of intent for murder charges to be pressed.

Hooda earlier said, "There was no connection between accused and victim and accused and eyewitnesses. This is what has been revealed so far in the investigation...Intention is required for murder. Till now, no previous connection has been found between the accused and victim. If intention is not established, it is difficult for police to prove charges under section 302."

Accused were aware woman was under car: Prosecution

The prosecutors told the court on Monday that the five occupants of the car were aware that her body was trapped under the vehicle and they could see it.

Metropolitan Magistrate Sanya Dalal, who remanded six accused in the case to 14 days' judicial custody, expressed displeasure over the delay in obtaining CCTV footages of the incident in which Anjali was killed in the early hours of the new year day after being dragged underneath the car for 12 km.

Upon being asked about the findings from the custodial interrogation of the accused, the investigating officer (IO) said six new CCTV footages were obtained, accused persons confronted with each other, and the route of the car and timeline of the incident established.

The IO said that in one clip, two of the occupants could be seen getting down and inspecting the vehicle to check if something was trapped underneath. It was at variance with their earlier claim that no one had got off the car to see if something was stuck under the vehicle.

“Two persons got down and inspected what was stuck in the wheels. They were well aware of what was stuck…,” Additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava said.

The judge then asked whether the vehicle’s occupants could see that the body was being dragged, to which Srivastava replied in the affirmative.

Srivastava, however, did not disclose the identity of the two accused in the open court proceedings.

Expressing displeasure over the delay in obtaining CCTV footage, Dalal said, “Why can’t the CCTV footage be obtained in one go? Why are you (the prosecution) waiting? Will you do it after it gets tampered?”

Dalal also asked the IO about the number of CCTV cameras on the entire route. The IO told the court the footages from all cameras installed on the way are being analysed. ?

The prosecution also informed the court that around 20 witnesses had recorded their statements and a new witness, who was around 100 metres away from the spot of the accident, has joined the investigation. ?

The earlier developments in case

Earlier, it emerged that Anjali was not sexually assaulted. The question arose after a video purportedly showing the woman's body without clothes and broken legs has surfaced on social media. The footage has led to claims that the victim was raped and killed but police said it was an accident.?

However, the preliminary autopsy report said there was no evidence of sexual assault.

Doctors of the Maulana Azad Medical College board who carried out the autopsy opined that the provisional cause of death was "shock and haemorrhage" as a result of pre-death injury "to the head, spine, left femur, and lower limbs".

"All injuries collectively can cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, injury to the head, spine, long bone and other injuries can cause death independently and collectively in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries produced by blunt force impact and possible with vehicular accident and dragging," says their opinion in the preliminary report.

Questions also arose at the conduct of Anjali's companion Nidhi, who went home after the accident and did not inform anyone. Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal also issued a statement questioning her credibility as a witness.?

She tweeted in Hindi, "Anjali's friend is sitting in a live show and telling how Anjali was hit in front of her by the boys. This 'friend' then left the place and went home. What kind of a friend is she? She did not stop the boys and did no inform the police of Anjali's family. She went home. This should also be investigated.

"Now that police has caught Anjali's friend, she is coming on TV to talk non-sence about her. How can you trust a woman who saw her friend dying and left her there instead of helping her and went home to sleep? Anjali's 'character assassination' has started. The public is smart."

Anjali's family has also raised questions at Nidhi, saying that she was not a friend of Anjali and they had not heard of her.?

The Delhi Police said Nidhi escaped the site of accident out of fear and went home.

Hooda sought to dismiss claims by Anjali's family that that never heard ?or met her 'friend' Nidhi. He said around 25-30 calls were exchanged between Anjali and Nidhi during December 29-31.

Anjali's family also rejected the statements that Nidhi was drunk at the time of the incident.

(With PTI inputs)