Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 13

A local court has denied bail to an accused, Paras Arora, facing charges of hitting an ASI of the Chandigarh Police with his car at a naka in Sector 20 here. The police arrested the accused after registering an FIR against him on the statement of Constable Parvesh.

As per the FIR, Constable Parvesh, along with ASI Ramesh Chand and other officials, was deployed at a naka in Sector 20, Chandigarh, on April 10, 2021.

Parvesh said they were standing at the naka near a petrol pump at the turn of Sector 20-C and D. When ASI Ramesh Kumar signalled a speeding car to stop, the driver drove the vehicle towards him and hit him. The impact of the hit was such that the ASI flung into the air and sustained multiple injuries. The accused fled the spot after the mishap.

Navjit Brar, counsel of the accused, claimed that Paras was falsely implicated in the case. He had been behind the bars since April 11, 2021.

Brar said the accused was a student of BA (final-year) with no criminal record.

He claimed that it was yet to be ascertained if ASI Ramesh Chand suffered injuries after being hit by the applicant’s vehicle as alleged or he was already lying injured there. Brar said as per the record of the General Hospital, ASI Ramesh Chand was discharged and released as “cured” on April 15, 2021. A person with multiple injuries cannot be cured and discharged in 2-3 days.

Brar said after a few days of discharge, the ASI succumbed to Covid-19, but his death was being falsely linked to the alleged accident just to project the gravity of offence. He also cited the Supreme Court’s guidelines for release on bail.

The public prosecutor argued that the applicant was involved in a case of attempt to murder. He did not deserve the leniency of the court in grant of regular bail. He said the victim expired on May 1, 2021, during treatment. His post-mortem examination report was still awaited. After the receipt of the report, relevant sections were to be added to the present case.

After hearing the arguments, Additional Sessions Judge Dr Rajneesh said in view of the grave nature of offence, the court was of the opinion that the applicant did not deserve the discretionary concession of bail.