MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 66 dated 28.2.2010 under Sections 308, 304, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Manimajra.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued on 10.9.2010.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as no offence under Sections 308, 304, 34 IPC is made out against him. The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence but was present in his office and moreover, the FIR was registered after a delay of five days of the alleged occurrence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was on duty from 4.45 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and the alleged occurrence took place at 5.45 p.m. The injured was admitted in the hospital i.e. Public Health Centre, Manimajra at 4.47 p.m. and thereafter he was referred to PGI and was admitted there at 6.25 p.m. There is no other documentary evidence to connect the present petitioner with the alleged offence or to show that he was present at the place of occurrence at that time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Investigating Officer was asked to verify the fact with regard to presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence and he verified and stated that this fact was correct. The presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence at the relevant time makes the presence of the petitioner doubtful. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, U.T. Chandigarh mentioned that it was a fit case where the petitioner was entitled for interim anticipatory bail at least till the making of the statement by the complainant and only because of that reason, interim anticipatory bail was granted but subsequently the injured died and he could not made the statement.