IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No. 780 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Hem Raj @ Raju .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 192/2010 U/s 379, 411 IPC, PS Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. August 20, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. BN Molakhi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that Vijay Kumar lodged an FIR on 11.4.2010 at 11.40 am with PS Rudrapur against unknown persons with the averments that the his truck no.UP-25T-5617 was stolen by somebody, when he had gone to answer the call of nature after parking the said truck on Kichha Road, near Bagwara Mandi. Later on the same day, the said truck was recovered by police at 5.15 pm from the possession of the accused applicant and the co-accused Pradeep Singh, who was driving the said truck and the applicant was sitting alongside. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Opposing the bail application of the accused applicant, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that the said truck was recovered on the same day of incident i.e. on 11.4.2010 at 5.15 pm from the possession of the accused applicant and the co-accused Pradeep Singh. He further submitted that the accused applicant has a long criminal history and several cases including some similar type of crimes have been 2 registered against him. Cases registered against the accused applicant are reproduced below: (i) Case Crime No. 2193/05, u/s 307 IPC, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (ii) Case Crime No. 2194/05, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (iii) Case Crime No. 2195/05 under NDPS Act, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (iv) Case Crime No. 2196/05, u/s 4/25 Arms Act, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (v) Case Crime No. 1853/06, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (vi) Case Crime No. 841/09, u/s 419/420 IPC, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (vii) Case Crime No. 844/09, u/s 307 IPC, PS Majhola, District Moradabad; (viii) Case Crime No. 845/09, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Majhola, District Moradabad; (ix) Case Crime No. 320/01, u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Kashipur; (x) Case Crime No. 367/02, u/s 379 IPC, PS Kashipur; (xi) Case Crime No. 123/01, u/s 380/411 IPC, PS Pakwara, District Moradabad; (xii) Case Crime No. 71/04, u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (xiii) Case Crime No. 515/04, u/s 307 IPC, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (xiv) Case Crime No. 516/04, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Civil Lines, Moradabad; (xv) Case Crime No. 46/01, u/s 379 IPC, PS Mudapande, District Moradabad; (xvi) Case Crime No. 10/06, u/s 379 IPC, PS Pakvara, District Moradabad; 3 (xvii) Case Crime No. 258/06, under Arms Act, PS Majhola, District Moradabad; (xviii) Case Crime No. 3966/07, u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar; (xix) Case Crime No. 5056/07, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar; (xx) Case Crime No. 11/09, u/s 223/224 IPC, PS Lalkuan, District Nainital. Perusal of the aforesaid criminal history reveals that as many as seven cases of theft have been registered against the accused applicant. Other crimes are also heinous which are registered in different police stations of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR, recovery and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant to prove his involvement in the alleged crime. The said truck was recovered from the possession of the accused applicant and the co-accused Pradeep Singh. The applicant has a long criminal history of twenty cases, which shows that he is a habitual offender and very often commits such types of crimes. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the offence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.8.2010 PRABODH