LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-70

BHUPINDER SINGH @ BABU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 17, 2013
Bhupinder Singh @ Babu Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.praying for release of the petitioner on bail in terms thereof in a case registered vide FIR No.106 dated 19.12.2012 under Sections 452/307/324 IPC, at Police Station Ghonie Ke Banger, Distt. Gurdaspur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, the petitioner trespassed into his house and caused him two kirch injuries one in the stomach and another on the upper portion of the left shoulder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three-fold contention. One, that the duty register would show that he was on duty on 18.12.2012 from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. in the office of SSP Vigilance Bureau which is at a distance of 8 Kms. He has further stated that the MLR has disclosed that the injured was having almost 10 injuries whereas according to the narration given out by the complainant he suffered only 2 kirch blows. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all this would falsify the case of the complainant and the police has falsely implicated him. He further contends that the injured is a bad character and involved in other incidents of the same kind.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and noticing the fact that prima facie the mainstay of the allegations of the petitioner seems to be uninspiring as his plea of alibi is based on an attendance register which has no legal sanctity, cannot be accepted at this stage. Further, as far as numerous other injuries apart from the two which have been narrated by the complainant, are concerned, I am of the opinion that it is a matter which would be established in due course of the investigation and at this stage of the proceedings it cannot be said that the entire case is false considering the role of the petitioner by causing two kirch blows. Suffice it to say that the parameters of exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are not satisfied as the petitioner has failed to establish before this court the abuse of the process of law and the chance of his false implication. Consequently, the bail application is declined. Nothing said herein shall be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.