Court reserve orders on Virk's bail plea for Oct 6

Rupnagar, Oct 4 (UNI) Rupnagar Sessions Judge Rekha Mittal has reserved her orders for October 6 on the bail application filed by former Punjab DGP S S Virk, who was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau in a case registered against him for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The judge also reserved her orders for October 6 on the bail application filed by a co-accused in the case Vijay Pal Singh Dimpi.

It may be mentioned that Virk had filed the bail application on September 29 last, while Dimpi had filed the bail application a few days earlier. The applications were taken up for hearing today.

The Court reserved its orders after hearing the arguments of Public prosecutor Pradeep Mehta and defense counsels.

The defence counsels contended that Virk had been falsely implicated in the case by the Vigilance Bureau out of political vendetta and did not posses any disproportionate asset.

They also maintained that he was suffering from serious ailments and needed to undergo surgery.

On the other hand the Public prosecutor while opposing the bail plea contended that Virk and his relatives had 37 bank accounts and an amount of Rs 36 lakh had been deposited in his four accounts on a single day on July 23, 2001. He contended that the Virk had scant regard for service conduct and rules and had filed misconceived returns regarding his properties.

The Public Prosecutor further argued that since Virk was an influential person, he could influence the witnesses in the case, if he was released on bail.

Virk was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on September 10 from Maharashatra Sadan, New Delhi after registering a case under section 7, 13(1) (d) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 168, 169, 216, 218, 120-B of IPC on September 9 at the Vigilance police station at Mohali. He is currently under judicial custody and has been admitted to the PGI, Chandigarh for the treatment of his ailment.

Dimpi, who was also arrested by the Vigilance Bureau, is also under judicial custody in the case is lodged in jail.

UNI