IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.309 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Nabijan @ Mamu S/o Shamuddin R/o Village Sheelpur, P.S. Kundarki, District Moradabad 2. Musahid S/o Kallu, R/o Village Bahpur, P.S. Bahjoi, District Moradabad ……….Applicants (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.324 of 2009, U/s 399/402/307 IPC, P.S. Vikasnagar, Distt. Dehradun Dated: April 21, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that the present applicants-accused were arrested by the police on 20.11.2009 while planning to commit dacoity and from their possession, illegal arms were recovered and even they also opened fire upon the police party. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA argued that the applicants are having a criminal history, which is as follows: - Applicant No.1-Nabijan @ Mamu A. Case Crime No.310/2009 U/s 395/397/412 IPC B. Case Crime No.327/2009 U/s 25 Arms Act Applicant No.2- Musahid S/o Kallu A. Case Crime No.85/2001 U/s 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Bahjoee Distt. Moradabad B. Case Crime No.461/2007 U/s 307 IPC, P.S. Bahjoee Distt. Moradabad C. Case Crime No.504/2007 U/s 452/395/504/506 IPC, P.S. Bahjoee Distt. Moradabad D. Case Crime No.131/2009 U/s 110 Cr.P.C., P.S. Bahjoee Distt. Moradabad E. Case Crime No.310/2009 U/s 395/397/412 IPC F. Case Crime No.327/2009 U/s 25 Arms Act On the basis of above criminal history, it was further argued by learned Addl. G.A. that the applicants are the habitual criminals and they are doing the same type of offences one after another. Further, the applicants are the resident of District Moradabad and they are having criminal history in P.S. Bahjoi District Moradabad and now they are committing the same type of offences in the State of Uttarakhand also. 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 criminal history of the applicants and seeing the gravity of the offence, 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. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.04.2010 Rajeev Dang