The city court, after hearing arguments of all concerned parties on Monday, reserved its order on the bail application of Ryan bus conductor Ashok Kumar, who was arrested by Gurgaon police and accused of murdering seven-year-old student Pradhyumn Thakur, and on the court’s jurisdiction in the case. It will pronounce its order on both at 3pm, Tuesday.
Ashok has been in jail since September 8. Later CBI, which took over the probe from Gurgaon police on September 22, apprehended a Class XI student of Ryan International School, Bhondsi, on November 7. The hearing on Kumar’s bail application started on November 16 and concluded on Monday.
In its submission before court, CBI claimed to have found no incriminating evidence against Kumar, but refused to give him clean chit, as the probe is at a crucial stage, and they could yet find some clinching evidence that changed the course of investigation. The agency had also questioned the jurisdiction of the court currently hearing the bail application — special court for crime against and women and children — saying it should be handed over to the special CBI court in Panchkula.
“Court heard arguments of all parties and reserved its order for Tuesday,” said Sushil Tekriwal, counsel for Pradhyumn’s father Barun Thakur. Thakur has also opposed Kumar’s bail on similar grounds. Tekriwal said CBI has submitted reports of DNA, blood samples, FSL, electronic evidence, statements and other documents to court. “Court has analysed all evidence and material. It will announce its order on Tuesday,” said Tekriwal.
Kumar’s counsel Mohit Verma said all probe reports are in favour of his client. “None of the reports suggest Kumar’s involvement,” said Verma. He said the court asked for statements of people taken by police and CBI. “Statements taken by Gurgaon police and CBI are almost the same for common witnesses, except for variation in submissions,” said Verma, adding the school gardener Harpal, in an earlier statement, had claimed he had seen blood stains on Kumar’s clothes, but in his statement before CBI, had said the opposite. “In his statement before CBI, Harpal said he had been forced into his earlier statement,” said Verma.
There were similar variations in statements of teachers and staff. “In their statements before CBI, teachers and staff maintained they had seen Kumar washing his face at the water tank,” said Verma, adding that before CBI, they had retracted their earlier statements about Kumar to police, most of which were negative.
According to sources, the court expressed its reservation over the CBI counsel, saying the investigating agency needed a better prosecutor to represent its arguments. The court also observed that the current CBI prosecutor had failed to effectively respond to questions put by the court. The court apparently also told the CBI prosecutor not to get angry while responding to “uncomfortable” questions by the public prosecutor.
“This observation is very serious in nature and I wish next time CBI shall be well-prepared to present the case in court properly,” said Tekriwal.
