IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No. 837 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rashid @ Sajid .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 384/2006 U/s 302, 394, 411 IPC, PS Dalanwala, District Dehradun. _______________________________________________________________ September 10, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 27.11.2006 at 9.30 pm, an FIR was lodged by Ahmad Shekh with the averments that his brother Sakhar @ Sonu Sekh owned a jewelry shop, viz, JD Jewelers at Tea Estate Banjarawala, Dehradun. As usual, he was coming today (27.11.2006) to his house after closing his shop then at about 7.45 pm when he reached ahead of Bengali Kothi at Mothorwala Road, four persons chased him and after snatching his blue coloured bag, they shot his brother in his back. He was brought to Doon hospital and now his treatment is going on in CMI. The aforesaid bag contained gold, silver and Rs. 800/- cash. FIR was lodged against four unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the name of the applicant came into light. Looted articles were also recovered and the same were identified by the complainant before the Magistrate on 6.6.2007. On the same day i.e. on 6.6.2007, the applicant was also identified by the eyewitnesses during the T.I.P. conducted at District Jail, Dehradun. 2 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 Investigation Officer has collected sufficient credible evidence against the accused applicant. He further submitted that the victim Sakhar @ Sonu Sekh died subsequently because of the injuries sustained by him in the said incident and, therefore, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that some looted articles were recovered from the possession of the applicant and he has also been identified by the eyewitnesses of the incident. He further argued that the trial has commenced and prosecution witness evidence is in progress. He also submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and he is involved in a number of crimes in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and the following cases are registered against him: (i) CR No. 1479/99 u/s 392/411 IPC, PS Katghar (ii) CR No. 1535/99 u/s 25/4 Arms Act, PS Katghar (iii) CR No. 1234/97 u/s 307 IPC, PS Katghar (iv) CR No. 188/94 u/s 394/411 IPC, PS Amroli, Moradabad (v) CR No. 1231/97 u/s 307 IPC, PS Katghar, Moradabad Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR, identification memo & T.I.P. 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 3 is made out against the accused applicant and credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. to prove the involvement of accused applicant in the said crime. Hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal history of the accused applicant and the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial. The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.9.2010 PRABODH