• HOME»
  • Others»
  • Delhi Car Horror Case: Rohini Court grants bail to accused Ashutosh

Delhi Car Horror Case: Rohini Court grants bail to accused Ashutosh

In the Kanjhawala case, the Rohini Court granted accused Ashutosh bail on a Rs 50,000 bond. Meanwhile, Rohini’s court imposed a condition on his departure, stating that he would not leave Delhi without the court’s permission.  The court said that the accused would not tamper with the evidence, and would not contact the witnesses. Despite […]

Advertisement
Delhi Car Horror Case: Rohini Court grants bail to accused Ashutosh

In the Kanjhawala case, the Rohini Court granted accused Ashutosh bail on a Rs 50,000 bond.

Meanwhile, Rohini’s court imposed a condition on his departure, stating that he would not leave Delhi without the court’s permission. 

The court said that the accused would not tamper with the evidence, and would not contact the witnesses. Despite the Delhi Police’s opposition to bail, accused Ashutosh got bail. 

Earlier on 12 January the Rohini court rejected Ashutosh Bhardwai’s bail plea because of the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations. The court said that the investigation against Ashutosh is still in its initial stages.

The bail plea of Ashutosh was reserved after hearing the submissions of the Delhi police and defense counsel. After which, Ashutosh’s lawyer said that Ashutosh was not present in the car at the time of the incident.

However, Ashutosh Bhardwaj’s counsel, advocate Shipesh Chaudhary, said when the incident took place, his applicant was at home. In this case, Ashutosh’s counsel submitted Ashutosh’s iPhone, which records the live locations.

“The only allegations against him are under 212, 201, and 120B Part, and these are bailable in nature,” Chaudhary said.

Chaudhary further said that when the offense was committed, Ashutosh was not in the car.

“Another suspect, Ankush, is out on bail,” Chaudhary said.

“Before the stage of charge, the document can’t be produced by the defense. The authenticity of this video can’t be established as these are without section 65B of the Evidence Act certificate,” Special public prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava said.

SPP Srivastava also submitted, “We never said he (Ashutosh) was in the car. Our stand is that he provided his vehicle to a person who was not authorized to drive.”

“He did not inform the police regarding the accident for which he was under legal compulsion. He didn’t inform the police about the incident despite having knowledge,” SPP said.

However, Anjali was killed in the early hours of the New Year after her scooter was hit by a car and she was dragged under the vehicle for 13 kilometers on the city’s roads.

Advertisement