IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.1215 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Madan Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.38/09 U/Ss 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act, Patti Aswalsyun (Thana Kotdwar) Distt. Pauri Garhwal Dated: December 22, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 8.11.2009 at about 9.00 PM, the applicant-accused had caused firearm injuries to his wife Smt. Munni Devi as a result of which she succumbed to her injuries. With the same averments, the FIR was given on 10.11.2009 at 7:20 AM by Trilok Singh to Naib Tehsildar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that there is no eyewitness of the case. Per contra, learned brief holder argued that in the statement of Satendra Singh, who is the son of deceased, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it has come that he fully corroborated the prosecution case. He specifically stated in his statement that on the night of incident, some quarrel took place between his mother and father (applicant). Suddenly, his father, in the heat of anger, caused firearm injury to his mother Smt. Munni Devi due to which she fell down on the ground and while taking her to the hospital, she succumbed to her injuries. He further submitted that in the post-mortem report of deceased, cause of death has been opined as shock due to hemorrhage as a result of injury no.1, which is a firearm injury. He further submitted that the applicant-accused has been assigned with the specific role of causing firearm injuries to his wife due to which she succumbed to her injuries. He further submitted that the applicant is the main accused and the contents of the FIR also get corroborated from the medical evidence. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of the FIR; statements of the eyewitness, namely, Satyendra Singh; perusing the post-mortem report; considering the fact that the applicant is the main accused who caused firearm injuries to his wife which resulted into her death, 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. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. Rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.12.2009 Rajeev Dang