BREAKING: More Trouble For Sheila Dikshit’s Son-In-Law..

0
129 views

New Delhi: Former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit’s son-in-law was today denied bail by a court here in a case of theft and misappropriation of his wife’s property.

Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma denied the relief to Syed Mohammad Imran, who was arrested from Bangalore and brought here on transit remand, and sent him to judicial custody till December 2.

The court had yesterday denied the police plea for extension of Imran’s two days remand for custodial interrogation which expired yesterday, saying enough time was given to the police.

During the arguments on Imran’s bail plea, the probe agency opposed the application moved by the accused, saying that if granted bail, he was likely to tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. It also said that the probe was still on.

The counsel appearing for complainant also opposed the bail plea, saying that the offences were very serious and there were charges against the accused that he attempted to murder his wife.

Dikshit’s daughter Latika and Imran had got married in 1996, but were living separately for the last 10 months.

In her complaint filed in June, Latika had alleged that Imran’s attitude had changed towards her and had become aggressive and rude after her mother lost in the Delhi Assembly polls.

Latika had alleged that Imran took away papers of a piece of land owned by her in Nainital, despite having been told not to do so in May.

According to the police, she also alleged that some of the belongings, kept at her Hailey Road house in central Delhi, had gone missing and whenever she asked for these, Imran was evasive.

She also alleged that he took away jewellery and other expensive items from there.

Latika also alleged that one of her female relatives was “in connivance” with Imran, they said.

A case was registered against Imran under Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 120 B (Criminal conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence)and 420 (cheating) of IPC and under 66 of the IT Act

Comments

comments