The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man seeking anticipatory bail, who is accused in a FIR registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 IPC (Sections 324 and 308 IPC added later) at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
The division bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B. R. Gavai said that the High Court may have misunderstood the fact and granted the anticipatory bail to the other co accused. “We are not going to do the mistake here,” said the Court replying to the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner arguing to grant anticipatory bail.
The present petition was filed against the order passed the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had dismissed the 4th Anticipatory Bail of the petitioner.
After going through the order the Supreme Court has opined that it sees no reason to interfere with it. The Top Court has found that the High Court has gone through the facts well and taken the right decision for not granting the Anticipatory Bail to the present Petitioner.
In his fourth anticipatory bail application before the High Court the Petitioner had contended that he was falsely involved in the case and the simple injuries were blown out of proportion and the accusations against him were aggravated to justify addition of Section 307 IPC.
The Apex Court has upheld the order passed by the High Court which is of the view that the allegation against the petitioner is very specific in the story of the prosecution that he had given rod blows on the head, forehead, eyes and nose of injured Gurjit Singh.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court orders holding of Awadh Bar Election on September 25
The High Court had also upheld the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib wherein Court has dismissed the Bail of the accused placing its reliance on the CT Scan report of the victim which clearly shows fracture of left frontal bone with underline extra dural hemorrhage of maximum thickness approximately 15 cm and the injury on the left eye of Gurjit Singh.
The high court had declared the injuries grievous in nature and also that all the injuries are on the vital parts of the body.