IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.113 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Jahangeer State of Uttarakhand Versus ..….Applicant (In Jail) …….Opposite party Dated: March 11, 2010 Arising out of Case Crime No.512 of 2009 Under Sections 420,406, 506 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that the applicant alongwith two accused, namely, Arsahd and Munavar took Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant Abdul Rashid on the assurance that they will provide him job in Saudi Arab. But lateron the applicant and the co-accused did not provide him any job and also did not return the amount of the complainant and when the complainant asked for his money then the applicant and the co-accused threatened him for dire consequences. The State has filed a counter affidavit along with which the statements recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Abdul Rashid (Annexure CA-1), Rao Sehnawaj (Annexure CA-2) and Mehendi Hasan (Annexure CA-3) have been annexed who have fully supported the prosecution case. On the basis of the above-said evidence of those witnesses, learned Brief Holder submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant-accused so as to connect him with the aforesaid crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant never took any amount from the complainant as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in the said case. Per contra, learned brief holder submitted that on the basis of the statements of witnesses annexed with the counter affidavit, at this stage, it is established that the applicant-accused is involved in commission of the aforesaid crime. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of the FIR; statements of the complainant and that of other witnesses, namely, Rao Sehnawaj and Mehandi Hasan and other material available on record, the Court is of the view that the present applicant does no deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. Urgency Application No.871 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.03.2010 RG