IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Second Bail Application No.20 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mursaleen S/o Jabbar ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.39/08 U/Ss 364-A/34, 120-B IPC, P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar Dated: December 17, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court on 6.11.2008. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that complainant Julfukar lodged the FIR on 31.3.2008 at 4:10 PM at P.S. Pathri with the averments that on 27.3.2008 at about 9:30 PM, his son Nazim was missing. On 28.3.2008 at about 7:00 PM, he received a phone by which a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs were demanded as ransom. On 29.3.2008, the complainant again directed through a letter kept behind the watch of mosque in which about the kidnapping of Nazim was stated and he was directed to arrange Rs.10.00 lacs failing which his son would be killed. On 29.3.2008, the complainant received another phone call but thereafter no call was received. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and during investigation, the name of the applicant came into the light. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. Per Contra, learned Brief Holder drew the attention of this Court towards the statements of the witnesses, namely, Imran, Jamil, Tehsil and Arif, recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. These witnesses have clearly deposed into their evidence that they saw the applicant while taking the son of complainant, namely, Nazim towards Jwalapur. He further submitted that even the applicant-accused also made an extra judicial confession before the Gram Pradhan Mohd. Tahseen that the son of the complainant is no more in the world and they have thrown him in Gangnaher. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that co- accused Sahzad has been released on bail by the order of In-charge Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 27.6.2008 and the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. I am not at all convinced with this argument for the reason that the first bail application moved by the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court on 6.11.2008. Even the fact of granting bail of co-accused was well within the knowledge of this Court on 6.11.2008. This Court after analyzing the each and every point of the case, had rejected the bail application of the case. Therefore, this argument is now of no help for the applicant. No new ground has either been argued or raised by counsel for the applicant. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of the FIR; statements of the witness, namely, Imran, Jamil, Tehsin and Arif recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C.; consider the gravity of the offence and the fact that the applicant has committed the heinous crime as well as on perusing the other material available on record, the Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. Therefore, the present bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. Rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.12.2009 Rajeev Dang