IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.518 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sanjay S/o Meera Singh R/o Village Godhna, P.S. Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: May 18, 2010 Arising out of Case Crime No.581 of 2009 U/s 302 IPC P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 20.12.2009 at 8:45 AM Satkumar lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali Manglaur stating therein that on 19.12.2009 his brothers-in-law Mange Ram and Sanjay came to his house at about 7 PM. Both had come on motorcycles and were drunk. They stayed in his house for about one hour and thereafter Mange wanted to stay but Sanjay took him forcibly in his bike. In the night, his wife Babita gave call at Godhana and enquired about Mange and got the information that Mange has not reached. On 20.12.2009 at 6 AM, applicant/accused Sanjay called his wife on road and told her that he has committed murder of Mange Ram and his dead body is lying on railway track. His wife communicated this information at her parental house at Godhana by telephone. Thereafter people from the Village Godhana and the complainant reached at the place of occurrence. It is alleged in the FIR that Sanjay is of criminal character. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime. She further argued that the deceased and the applicant were the real brothers and the complaint wanted to grab the property of the deceased and the applicant/accused as well and for this reason, the complaint has implicated the applicant in a false case. She further argued that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the aforesaid case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA while opposing the bail application of the accused argued that on the same day i.e. at 3:35 PM, post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Mange Ram was conducted in which cause of death was coma due to ante-mortem head injury and the time of death was half day before. Thus, the contents of FIR get full corroboration from the post-mortem report. He further argued that the statements of the complainant Satkumar and Smt. Babita were also recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and both of them have fully supported the prosecution case. He further argued that besides the above, the applicant/accused has criminal history of seven cases, which reads as under:- a) Crime No.186/97 u/Ss 364A/368/120B IPC b) Crime No.206/97 u/s 3/4 of Gunda Act c) Crime No.195/03 u/s 25 Arms Act d) Crime No.229/03 3/4 of Gunda Act e) Crime No.296/03 u/Ss 147/332/353/504/506 IPC and Sect. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act f) Crime No.220/03 u/Ss 323/504/453 IPC g) Crime No.189/07 u/s 60 of Excise Act Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the fact that specific role has been assigned to the applicant-accused, and looking to the fact that the applicant-accused has criminal history of seven cases, I am of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.05.2010 RG