IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 22nd day of December, 2011 2nd Bail Application No.104 of 2011 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Nitin Parmar, S/o Late Shri Damodar Singh, R/o Behind Wate Tank, Jagdamaba Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital. ………Applicant Versus tate of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party S Arising out of F.I.R. No. 108 of 2010, Under Section- 302, 201 I.P.C., olice Station- Haldwani, District-Nainital. P Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. H.C. Pandey, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, present for the complainant. Heard. Applicant Nitin Parmar, who is in jail in connection with F.I.R. No. 108 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station- Haldwani, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 2 The first bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits on 29.04.2011. In the second bail application the new ground taken by the applicant is that PW-2 Ramshri did not support the prosecution case. It is further pleaded that she is a key witness in the case. Perusal of annexure no.5, which is a copy of statement of PW-2 Ramshri, shows that she had supported the prosecution story on 15.03.2011(before the bail application was rejected) in her examination in chief, but in the deferred cross- examination on 14.07.2011(subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application) she stated that she did not see the quarrel between the applicant and his wife, but she did support the prosecution story, even in her cross-examination relating to other circumstances. It is a case, in which, it is alleged that the applicant Nitin Parmar, committed murder of his wife, by setting her on fire. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, and after going through all the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the new ground alleged by the applicant is not sufficient for granting the bail. Therefore, the second bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 22.12.2011 JM