At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and the prosecution story is not worthy of credit. Contends that the complainant nominated the petitioner in her fourth supplementary statement after a period of four months, which shows her mala fides. Contends that the photographs allegedly connecting the petitioner with the commission of the crime were never sent for forensic examination, therefore, they cannot be relied upon to determine the guilt of the petitioner. Lastly contends that the learned High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court for the safe administration of criminal justice, therefore, the same may be set at naught and the petitioner may be released on bail.
Categories:
Criminal