IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal II Bail Application No.85 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Surendra Gupta S/o Vishram Gupta R/o Purvia Basti, Patelnagar, District Dehradun ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.335 of 2009, U/s 302 IPC & 3/2(5) SC/ST Act, PS Patelnagar, District Dehradun Dated: July 9, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application. The first one was rejected for want of prosecution on 1.4.2010 and that was not decided on merits. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 25.10.2009 at about 10:30 PM, the applicant/accused had come in the house of complainant Phool Chandra in the state of intoxication. On this the brother of complainant, namely, Raj Bahadur gave a slap to the applicant due to which the applicant was having enmity with him. On the next day morning at about 5-5:30 AM when the complainant’s brother was going for his work, then the applicant/accused caused injuries to Raj Bahadur after surrounding him. On hearing the noise of his brother, the complainant along with Shamsher and other persons arrived on the spot, on seeing them the present applicant/accused along with co- accused Toni @ Sunder Lal had run away from there. This incident was seen in the electric light. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned Addl. GA appearing for the State, while opposing the bail application, submitted that there is no case of false implication. On the last night just before the date of incident, the applicant/ accused had come in the house of complainant as a result of which the brother of complainant slapped the applicant/ accused due to which he was having enmity. He further submitted that the averments made in the FIR also gets corroboration from the post-mortem report and even there is direct role assigned to the present applicant while committing the above-said incident. He further submitted that the applicant/accused had caused injury to Raj Bahadur as a result of which he succumbed to those injuries on the spot and he was also seen by the two witnesses Phool Chand and Shamsher. The FIR was lodged by Phool Chand on the same day at 6:15 AM. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record particularly considering the fact that the specific role has been assigned to the applicant and he is the sole accused who caused injuries to Raj Bahadur due to which he succumbed to those injuries on the spot, that the averments made in the FIR also gets corroboration from the post-mortem report as well as seeing the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 9.07.2010 Rajeev Dang