IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Second Bail Application No.43 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Pankaj Chawala S/o Raj Kumar R/o Village Sitapur, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand Versus ..….Applicant (In Jail) …….Opposite party Dated: May 7, 2010 Arising out of Case Crime No.69 of 2009, Under Sections 394/302/34/411/201 of IPC, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide this Court’s order dated 19.3.2010 and not decided on merits. In brief, the prosecution story is that an FIR was lodged by complainant Mohd. Azmal @ Guddu with the averments that his brother (Mursalin) had a business of sale purchase of ornaments. On 16.2.2009 at about 9 AM, his brother proceeded for Jwalapur from Meerut but he did not come back till late night. On 17.2.2009, a missing report was also lodged. In the meantime, the complainant received information from his maternal uncle who informed him that the deceased had a telephonic conversation with him on 16.2.2009 at about 11/11:30 AM and the deceased also told him that he was going to Jwalapur to supply the jewellery to the present applicant as per the order of one Jogendra @ Jogi. The complainant was further informed by one Ikram that he saw the deceased at about 16.2.2009 at about 12 PM while getting down from the bus and he also saw the deceased while talking with Jogendra @ Jogi and Vishnu. Thereafter, all of them proceeded towards Harilok Colony. On the same issue when Jogendra @ Jogi was enquired, he was nervous and was also denying about to have a meeting with the deceased. Hence, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant stating therein that the co- accused Jogendra @ Jogi and Vishnu in connivance with their accomplice, committed the murder of his brother. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 25.2.2009 at 9:05 AM at PS Jwalapur Distt. Haridwar. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that the present applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the said crime. Contrary to this learned Addl. GA for the State has vehemently opposed the bail of the applicant/accused and stated that though the applicant/accused is named in the FIR but the chain of the circumstances to connect the present applicant with the said crime is complete. He further stated that when the present applicant was arrested then on his pointing out and that of co-accused, dead body of Mursalin was recovered on 25.2.2009. He further argued that it has come in the investigation that the murder of deceased was committed in the house of the present applicant and the blood stains were also found inside the walls of the house of the applicant. Further, that the looted jwellery and the identity card of the deceased was also found in possession of the present applicant when he was arrested by the police on 25.2.2009. Further, that there are other evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation to connect the present applicant with the said crime and the chain of the circumstances is also complete against him to prove his guilty in commission of the said crime. 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 as well as on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State and also seeing the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The second bail application is rejected accordingly. Rdang (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.05.2010