In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-33094 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 06, 2011 Alvin Paul ---Petitioner versus State of U.T.Chandigarh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. R.K.Vashishat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J.S.Toor, Standing counsel for U.T.,Chandigarh *** Gurdev Singh, J. Affidavit of SI Rajinder Prasad, dated 6.12.2011 has been filed in Court today, which is taken on the record. Heard. The petitioner-accused, Alvin Paul son of Prem Paul, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 305 dated 26.9.2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 IPC in Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh. He has contended therein that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant as he is the elder brother of Haril Paul, who got seized Crl. Misc. No. M-33094 of 2011(O&M) -2- the illegal liquor of Azad Singh, Wine Contractor, who along with his companions caused injuries to his brother. The present FIR is the result of the revenge of that Azad Singh and the same has been got lodged from Rani, complainant, who is the mother of Rajesh @ Gabbar, who was implicated as one of the accused in FIR No. 205 dated 12.7.2011, which was got recorded by his brother under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It has been narrated in the present FIR that the petitioner along with his co-accused, while armed with swords, knives and iron rods, went to the house of Rani-complainant, which had been taken on rent by her from one Gafur. Bittu and Dharminder-accused, caught hold of her and pushed her out of the house, whereas Kala-accused, caught hold of her daughter, Rajni, who was assaulted in order to outrage her modesty. Dharminder struck a brick on her forehead and tore her clothes and the second injury was caused to that daughter by Angrej. The present petitioner gave a blow with the sword on the head of the complainant. After the occurrence, the complainant was medically examined and injury was found on her forehead. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR is the result of the counter blast to the FIR, which was got lodged against the complainant party by his brother and the falsity of participation of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is apparent from the fact that the statement of the complainant stands totally contradicted by the medical evidence, as according to her, the injury was caused on the head with the help of a sword, whereas the injury so found on the forehead, was the result of a blunt weapon. At this stage, it is too remote to say that the present FIR is the Crl. Misc. No. M-33094 of 2011(O&M) -3- counter blast to FIR No. 205 dated 12.7.2011, which was got lodged by the brother of the petitioner. Previous criminal act, so mentioned in that FIR, may be the motive on the part of the petitioner and other accused to cause injuries to the complainant and her daughter. It is now well settled that trustworthy ocular evidence is to be preferred as compared to the medical evidence, which is only opinion evidence. At this stage, merely on account of such contradiction, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He along with his co-accused tried to take the law in their own hands for getting the house of the complainant vacated and in the process, injuries were caused to her and her daughter and even the modesty of her daughter was out raged by his co-accused. The investigating agency certainly, in the course of investigation, would like to recover the weapon of offence from the possession of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the case are such that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, which is an extra ordinary remedy and which is to be resorted to in special circumstances. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 06, 2011 PARAMJIT