6 ‘associates' of Bishnoi acquitted in attempt to murder case
Those acquitted are Monty Shah of Burail, Parvinder Wadhwa, Deepak Wadhwa, and Virendra Soni from Hanumangarh (Rajasthan), and Vinay Kalyan and Mohit Kumar from Kalka (Haryana). A seventh accused, Kuldeep Singh Ghosal, passed away during the trial, and thus proceedings against him were stopped.
All of them were booked five years ago under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and various sections of the Arms Act by the Sector-34 police station. The case was filed based on a complaint by Tirath Singh, who had alleged that the accused had tried to kill him and the brother of slain cable operator Sonu Shah, Parveen.
However, during the trial, the complainant turned hostile and refused to identify the accused in court.
Advocate Palwinder Singh Lucky, who represented Vinay, Parvinder, and Deepak, argued that the police had falsely implicated his clients and that they were not even present at the crime scene. He accused the police of fabricating a story to frame them.
As per allegations, Tirath Singh, a resident of Burail and business associate of Sonu Shah and his brother Praveen, was targeted shortly after Sonu's murder on September 28, 2020. Tirath had alleged that Monty Shah, holding a pistol, tried to kill him and Praveen, owing to personal enmity. He recounted that around 11.30 pm, while he was on a call outside his office, Monty approached him with a pistol. Tirath managed to escape into his office as shots were fired. Monty and his accomplices then fled in a car.
Based on Tirath's statement, the police had arrested Monty and the other accused. But with the complainant retracting his testimony in court, all accused have now been acquitted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Frustrated over debts, techie attempts armed robbery at bank manager's home, held
Pune: Police arrested a 40-year-old unemployed IT professional from Manipur after he allegedly tried to rob a bank manager's son at gunpoint at their home in Pimple Gurav, officials said Tuesday. The accused posed as a courier delivery agent to gain entry into the house but was overpowered by the bank manager's brother and handed over to the police. Police arrested a 40-year-old unemployed IT professional from Manipur after he allegedly tried to rob a bank manager's son at gunpoint at their home in Pimple Gurav, officials said Tuesday. (Shutterstock) The incident occurred at a residential society on the evening of July 31. According to the police, the accused, Sangboi Kom Serto, had been living in NIBM area with his wife and two children. Investigators said he was heavily in debt and unable to meet the EMI payments for two flats he owned after losing his job last year. Jitendra Koli, senior inspector, Sangvi Police Station said Serto had come to Pune over a decade ago and previously worked as a business analyst with a private firm. After being laid off, he tried to keep up with loan repayments using his savings but eventually ran out of funds. 'He had been visiting a nationalised bank's branch in Sangvi and observing the manager's movements. He eventually followed him home and surveyed the premises,' said Koli. 'He was planning to rob him of ₹8- ₹10 lakh.' On the day of the incident, Serto arrived at the manager's residence around 6pm disguised as a courier personnel. He rang the doorbell and, upon being greeted by the manager's teenage son, claimed to be delivering official documents. Under the pretext of verifying identity, he asked for the manager's ID. The moment the boy turned away, Serto allegedly forced his way into the house, pointed a firearm at him, and demanded cash and valuables. However, the bank manager's brother, overpowered the accused, who was later restrained until police arrived. The brother sustained minor injuries during the scuffle, police said. A search led to the recovery of a licenced revolver, 19 live rounds, a kukri, and a suspicious object initially believed to be an explosive, which was later found to be a fake. 'The accused has been booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act. This seems to be a case driven by financial desperation,' Koli said. Police said the accused had pursued business management courses and previously held mid-level roles in the IT industry. Further investigation is underway to determine whether he had any accomplice or prior criminal history.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
VVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says EDVVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says ED
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing a plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking release in the VVIP chopper deal case, stated that besides other offenses, his extradition was sought for trial in the money laundering case also. The ED filed a reply on Tuesday opposing the plea pending before the court of Special Judge Sanjay Jindal at Rouse Avenue Court. The ED said that the plea is "misleading" and "devoid of any merits." It deserves to be dismissed. It is also stated that Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with the UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected. The reply of ED also mentioned that the reading of the judgement of September 2, 2018, passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, Michele's extradition was also sought in respect of the offence of money laundering. The agency also stated that James was arrested in the money laundering case on December 22, 2018. The period of maximum punishment of 7 years has not expired yet. In this scenario, the provision of section 436A providing a release does not apply to the accused. On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that Christian Michel James cannot be and should not be released without pleading guilty after framing of charges, he is an accused in. British National James seeking release from custody on the ground that he has spent a period in custody equivalent to a maximum punishment of 7 years. He is on bail in both the CBI and ED's Money laundering case, but still in custody due to non-filing of bail bond. He has to surrender his passport to the court, which has already expired. James was extradited to India on December 4, 2018 and was arrested by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case. Special CBI Judge Sanjay Jindal heard the arguments on the application moved by Christian Michel James. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Senior Advocate DP Singh, along with Manu Mishra, had argued that James shouldn't be granted release from jail just because he has undergone a period of 7 years in custody. It was further argued by the CBI's counsel that framing of charges has to take place. In case, even if, charges under section 467 (Forgery) IPC, not framed against him, he cannot be released without pleading guilty. Section 476 IPC has maximum punishment upto life imprisonment. "Only then can my lords say that his sentence is now over. Otherwise, he has to approach a constitutional court," the CBI counsel had submitted. On the other hand, advocate Aljo K Joseph, counsel for the accused, had argued that he was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) NK Matta, who appeared for the ED. He submitted that the condition of extradition doesn't apply to the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as he was arrested subsequently to the arrest by the CBI. SPP Matta also submitted that remission can be considered only after punishment. The seven years of punishment have not been completed in the ED's case. The court will continue to hear submissions on Wednesday also.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court denies bail to ex-BJP MLA for shooting inside police station
Calling the act 'shocking' and 'unacceptable in a civilised society', the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) rejected the bail plea of former BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad, accused of opening fire on Shiv Sena leader Mahesh Gaikwad inside a police station last year. Justice Amit Borkar, while refusing bail, underscored the gravity of the incident and observed, 'The allegations against the applicant are of extremely grave and disturbing nature. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the applicant, who is a former elected representative (MLA), brazenly entered the cabin of the Senior Police Inspector at Hill Line Police Station, armed with a loaded revolver. It is alleged that he opened fire and discharged two rounds of bullets upon the injured Mahesh Gaikwad, with the clear intention of causing his death. It is further alleged that he also aimed and fired at another person present, Rahul Patil, thereby attempting to cause him fatal injuries as well.' Ganpat Gaikwad, a former MLA from the Kalyan (East) constituency, filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with a case registered at Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar. He is accused of offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 143, 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), 109 (abetment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 30 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, on February 2, 2024, the two gathered at Hill Line Police Station, each demanding criminal action against the other. Around 9:30 p.m., Shiv Sena leader Mahesh Gaikwad, along with Rahul Patil and complainant Chainu Jadhav, was inside the Senior Police Inspector's cabin when Ganpat Gaikwad and his associate Vicky Ganatra entered. A heated argument broke out between the two factions. As tensions escalated, Senior PI Anil Jagtap stepped out to control the situation outside the cabin. The prosecution has alleged that after emptying all bullets from the revolver, the applicant noticed that the injured Mahesh was still alive. At this point, the Ganpat is stated to have sat on the Mahesh's chest and inflicted multiple forceful blows on his head using the butt of the revolver, a part not meant for attack, further aggravating the assault. 'Such an act, if taken to be true, demonstrates not only an intention to kill but also reveals the applicant's determination to ensure fatal consequences, irrespective of the location and presence of police officers,' Justice Borkar said, adding that these allegations, viewed in the context of the place where the incident occurred, inside the cabin of a senior police officer within the four corners of a police station, add a serious dimension to the entire episode. 'A police station is presumed to be a secure place for redressal of disputes and protection of life and liberty. If a violent crime of this scale is allowed to take place within such a protected zone, it shakes the confidence of the public in the ability of law enforcement machinery to maintain peace and order. A person, more so a public representative, engaging in such conduct reflects not only disregard for the rule of law but also sends a message of fear and intimidation to the citizens at large,' the court observed. While passing the order, the Judge said that the court is conscious of the fact that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, at the stage of considering bail, the court cannot remain oblivious to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. 'The nature of the allegations, the place of occurrence, and the conduct of the applicant, as narrated in the FIR and corroborated prima facie by CCTV footage and medical evidence, all suggest that the applicant's act was not one of mere provocation or sudden anger, but a deliberate and violent assault carried out with aggression. Such circumstances militate against the grant of bail at this stage,' the order read. The prosecution has placed significant reliance on CCTV footage from within the police station and the footage has been made part of the case record and, on initial examination, prima facie supports the account given by the first informant and injured eyewitnesses. The court noted that such electronic evidence plays a critical role at the bail stage. The ballistic report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory has confirmed that the bullets recovered from the injured victim's body were fired from the revolver seized from the applicant. This scientific evidence forms a critical link in the prosecution's chain of events, establishing a strong prima facie connection between the weapon and the injuries sustained. Ganpat Gaikwad claimed the incident was the result of a sudden fit of rage, lacking any premeditated intent. However, the footage clearly showed him entering the police station armed with a loaded revolver, which itself suggests conscious preparation, not an impulsive emotional outburst, the court said. The prosecution also relied on an audio recording of an interview the applicant allegedly gave to a private news channel, in which he is heard admitting to his intent to kill Mahesh Gaikwad and showing no remorse. This admission was made voluntarily and in the public domain, not under duress. The court noted that it reveals a mindset of justification rather than repentance, reinforcing the prosecution's position that the act was deliberate, intentional, and committed with impunity. The court found that the applicant's explanation lacks credibility, and the material on record clearly discloses a premeditated and violent act. At this stage, such conduct cannot be condoned, and the bail plea deserves to be rejected. 'The offence alleged against the applicant, if ultimately proved, is not only heinous but also indicative of a complete disregard for the rule of law and public safety. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the location where it occurred, and the applicant's own post-incident conduct raise serious concerns regarding the possibility of obstruction of justice if he is released on bail/. In such circumstances, the Court finds that no case is made out for grant of bail at this stage,' the order said.
