which the vehicle hit road divider, but the victim could manage driving of the vehicle, or otherwise the vehicle would have fallen from flyover bridge. The accused was brought back from that place to the police station. It is alleged that when the accused was being taken back to the police station, the accused threatened the police party with death after he returning from jail. The above allegations are very serious in nature. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there are no injuries to the victim nor damage to the vehicle and that false case was foisted against the accused. This is too early for this Court to consider the said contentions of the petitioner’s counsel in this bail application. It is disclosed that the petitioner is involved in a total of 26 criminal cases previously apart from crime Nos.78 of 2012 and 80 of 2012. They include not only excise offences but also offences against human body, trespass, using criminal force against public servants etc. Even though the petitioner’s counsel contends that several of the said matters ended in acquittal, there is no material in support of the same now. Having regard to facts of the case and previous criminal background of the petitioner and pendency of investigation in this case, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at
