IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal First Bail Application No.503 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Nannu @ Rakesh S/o Bal Kishan, R/o Tallihat, Champawat, District Champawat ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.236 of 2010, U/s 326/120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Champawat Dated: May 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 8.3.2010 at about 6 AM, the applicant went in the house of complainant Roshan Jahan where he caused injuries by brick on the head of complainant’s husband Rafiq as a result of which he received serious injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA. argued that on 8.3.2010 at 6 AM, the present applicant/accused had caused injuries on the head of Rafique (husband of complainant) with bricks and stones as a result of which he received grievous injuries on his head. He further submitted that soon thereafter the injured was taken to Combined Health Centre, Champawat and later on he was taken to Sharda Hospital, Pilibhit. He 2 further submitted that as a result of the injuries caused to the injured Rafiq by the present applicant, he got fracture of left parietal bone and right parieto-occipital bone and as many as 24 stitches came on his head. He further submitted that the injuries are grievous in nature, they are on the vital part of the injured and it was caused with intention to kill the injured Rafique. He further submitted that the contents of the FIR also gets corroboration from the medical report. 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 and also considering the gravity of the offence and considering the injuries sustained by the injured, 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. 12.05.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)