Advocate Dinesh Jangra gets relief from high court in assault case
The bail is subject to conditions, including Jangra’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation, refraining from any inducement or threat to witnesses, and not committing any similar offenses while on bail
The Punjab and Haryana high court granted anticipatory bail to Dinesh Jangra, an advocate accused in a high-profile assault case involving members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.
The order was passed by Justice Manisha Batra overturning the decision of the additional sessions judge, Chandigarh, which had denied Jangra’s bail application.
The bail is subject to conditions, including Jangra’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation, refraining from any inducement or threat to witnesses, and not committing any similar offenses while on bail.
Ranjit Singh, the complainant, also an advocate at the high court, had accused Jangra and several others, including prominent Bar Association members, of physically assaulting him at the Bar Association office. Singh alleged that the attackers not only physically assaulted him but also hurled casteist slurs at him and attempted to kill him.
Jangra’s counsel KDF Hooda argued that the allegations against his client were false and that the FIR was lodged six hours after the incident, casting doubt on its credibility.
“The injuries sustained by the complainant were minor and did not warrant the charges of attempted murder,” Hooda said highlighting discrepancies in the medical reports.
Hooda also accused Singh of pressuring the doctor who had conducted the medico-legal examination to exaggerate the injuries.
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that Jangra’s custodial interrogation was necessary to recover critical evidence, including a missing digital video recorder (DVR) that allegedly captured the entire incident.
The complainant’s counsel, Davinder Singh, asserted that the missing DVR was likely removed by someone benefiting from its absence, possibly Jangra or his associates.
In her ruling, Justice Batra noted lack of specific allegations against Jangra regarding the use of caste-related slurs and questioned the necessity of custodial interrogation for the recovery of the DVR, given that Jangra was not currently an office bearer of the Bar Association.
