IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.1224 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Bijendra @ Banti S/o Sukha 2. Chandan S/o Sukha Both R/o Vill. Sarkada Khas, P.S. Munda Pandey Distt Moradabad ……….Applicants (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.241 of 2009, U/s 302 IPC, P.S. Bazpur, Distt. U.S. Nagar Dated: March 26, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that Pan Singh married with Smt. Punam, however after some days of marriage, some difference arose between them. For this reason, Smt. Punam had gone to the house of her parents. Gajram and Pan Singh went in the house of applicants/ accused on 4.7.2009, then the applicants, namely, Bunty and Chandan directed Pan Singh to give divorce to their sister. On 14.7.2009, the present applicants-accused Bunty and Chandan came in the house of complainant and took Pan Singh with them towards the railway station. At about 10 PM, the complainant came to know that his brother Pan Singh is lying dead on the road. When the complainant went over there then he saw his brother lying dead and there were also signs of fire injuries on his dead body. It was specifically been averted in the FIR that the present applicants have murdered complainant’s brother Pan Singh due to enmity of Punam. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and even the FIR was lodged after two days of the incident. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA submitted that the specific allegations have been made against the applicants in the FIR and the averments made in the FIR gets corroboration from the post-mortem report in which cause of death has been opined as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante- mortem firearm injury. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the State along with which the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have been annexed. Witness Gajram has stated that the applicants-accused have murdered Pan Singh for the reason that he did not want to give divorce to Punam; witness Khem Karan has also stated the same fact and has also stated that his sister in law (BEHNOI) Panna Lal had seen the applicants-accused while talking with deceased Pan Singh; Panna Lal also stated that he had seen the applicants-accused while taking Pan Singh along with them and witness Surendra has also stated that he had informed the complainant Khem Karan that he last seen the applicants-accused Chandan and Bunty while talking the deceased Pan Singh. Thus, all these witnesses also corroborate the prosecution version. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and the statements of witnesses, namely Gajram, Khem Karan, Panna Lal and Surendra, as well as on perusing the other papers available on record, it is not a fit case where the applicants are entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.03.2010 Rajeev Dang