Court: Offence ‘grave’, no bail for two youths in cabbie attack case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 7

Terming an attack on a cab driver near Elante Mall as grave in nature, Dr Rajneesh, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, rejected the bail pleas of two persons arrested by the police in the case.

Sumit (27), alias Rahul, a resident of Zirakpur, and Gagandeep Singh (25), a resident of Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, were arrested for the crime that took place on February 7 this year.

As per the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the statement of the cab driver, Rohit Rana. Rana alleged that when he was coming to the mall in the Industrial Area, Phase 1 on February 7 to pick customers, two boys started chasing him on their bikes from Tribune Chowk.

When he stopped in front of the mall, the bikers came there and asked him to remove his jacket. As he objected, one of them attacked him with a sharp weapon on his neck. He resisted but the other boy caught hold of him and hit him with a helmet. He was again attacked with the weapon. The complainant alleged that the boys attempted to murder him. As he shouted for help, they fled on their motorcycles.

A case under Sections 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Industrial Area police station.

The counsel of the accused claimed that the accused were falsely implicated by the police at the instance of the complainant.

The public prosecutor argued that as per the medical report, injuries on the forehead and the left eyebrow of the cab driver were grievous. As the accused were involved in a case of attempt to murder, they deserved no leniency.

The court observed that the allegations against the accused were too grave to release them on a regular bail. There was every likelihood that if granted bail, the applicants might attempt to hamper the investigation or influence the witnesses. “Without further delving into the merits of the case and in view of the grave nature of offence, the court is of the opinion that the applicants do not deserve the discretionary concession of bail,” observed the court.