Murder convict ‘hoodwinks’ court

Check the Link Below , see how the cold blooded murderers convicted for Life imprisonment play the law and stay out of the Jail in India .

Whereas an innocent person without any crime may be put behind bars for no fault of theirs by mere a false complaint by the wife under section 498a.

Not only the innocent husband but also all the family members of husband who may not even have met the bride in their lifetime are also falsely charged under the cruel, false DV Act and 498a law .

People who are habitually criminals can come out of the Jails in India as per their wishes and even when they are in the Jail they have all the Luxuries available inside the jail to them and at times the Criminals have luxuries which a common person living outside doesnt have them at all .

Wah re INDIA !

Mera Bharat Mahan.

Check out the Link below



Murder convict ‘hoodwinks’ court
Remains out of jail for long time
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 12
Even if the courts reject your bail applications in a murder case for as many as five times, you can still be out. Get the state to give you parole; once out of the jail just get the period extended from time to time on mottled grounds.

CAT commando Gurmeet Singh alias Pinki, sentenced to life in October 2006 for shooting Avtar Singh on January 7, 2001, did exactly the same. He “hoodwinked” the court to “remain out of jail for a long time”.

Taking exception, Justice KS Garewal and Justice Sham Sunder of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have now ruled that, “Pinky failed to get bail from this court, but secured parole and then came back to seek extension of the parole on the very ground on which he had sought suspension of sentence.”

“This kind of absence of coordination by the Registry of the Court enables cunning persons to altogether bypass the law. Bail has been declined to the appellant five times. The present application for suspension of the sentence is the sixth application. The appellant had hoodwinked the court by moving two parallel proceedings before this court and managed to remain out of jail for a long time.”

“We are of the opinion that in order to curb malpractices, all criminal miscellaneous applications by appellants, whose appeals are to be heard by a Division Bench, must be placed before a Division Bench and should not be placed before a single judge. This would prevent contradictory orders being passed, as happened in the present case. Let this case be placed before the Chief Justice for passing an appropriate order on listing of applications.”

Elaborating, the Bench asserted, “The appellant has been cleverly manipulating this court by seeking relief under two separate provisions of law. He had sought suspension of sentence and bail on five occasions by invoking the provisions of Section 389 of the CrPC.”

“Simultaneously, he sought parole by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. We called for the file and discovered the appellant had been released on parole for 28 days on May 25, 2009, under the provision of Section 3 of the Punjab Prisoners Good Conduct (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.”

“The appellant used this parole order for securing its extension from the single judge, firstly for two months on June 18, 2009, and secondly, for a further period of 45 days on August 28, 2009…. While we are always supportive of release of convicts on parole as it is a measure of reform of the convicts, we also feel that misuse of this provision should be curbed.”





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: