Manmohan Singh vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 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.

Notice of motion was issued on 10.9.2010.

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.

Learned Counsel for U.T. opposes the bail on the ground that the distance from the place of working to the place of occurrence is very short and the same could be covered within a very short period and the plea of alibi is a matter of evidence which can be on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the petitioner. This plea cannot be accepted at this stage. Specific allegations are there against the petitioner and there is nothing which has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for implicating him falsely.

I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised the argument that the present petitioner was not present at the alleged place of occurrence and he was on duty and moreover, there was delay of five days in registration of the FIR. The plea of alibi taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage as it is a matter of evidence which can be proved only on adducing his evidence which is not there at this stage. The petitioner can prove the same at the time of leading evidence. Moreover, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the distance between the place of working and the place of occurrence is also very short which takes hardly five minutes to reach there. The plea of alibi cannot be accepted only on the ground that there is no evidence to show that he was present at the place of his working at that time.

The partitioner is in custody only for the last 65 days. The petitioner was on duty at that time or not, is a matter of evidence which cannot be appreciated at this stage.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and custody period of the petitioner, no ground is made out to grant bail at this stage. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.