IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION II Criminal Bail Application No.563 of 2008 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mustakeem S/o Ali Hasan, R/o village Ratanpur, P.S. Kotwali, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. ….Applicant(In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------ Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2006 U/s 302, 307 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. Dated June 27, 2008: Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Pramod Tewari, holding brief of Sri Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the accused/applicant and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 07.08.2007. In brief the prosecution case is this that on 24.09.2006 at 5:30 a.m. the present accused/applicant Mustakeem alongwith co-accused Babu shot at Mohsin and Shaukeen and due to the firearm injuries Mohsin succumbed to his injuries and Shaukeen has also received firearm injuries. With the same averments, the First Information Report was lodged by Mustakeem S/o Rafiq on 24.09.2006 at 7:15 a.m. at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused/applicant is in jail since more than one year and the trial has yet not been concluded. On the other hand, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that specific role has been assigned to the present accused/applicant, who alongwith the co-accused Babu in commission of the said crime and with the common intention to kill Mohsin and Shaukeen shot at them. In the incident Mohsin received firearm injures which were caused by the accused/appellant Mustakeem alongwith the co- accused Babu. In the postmortem report of the deceased Mohsin, the doctor has found firearm injuries on the person of the deceased 2 Mohsin and the cause of the death is shown due to haemorrhage & shock as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries. The injured Shaukeen has also received firearm injuries, which were caused by the accused/appellant Mustakeem, alongwith the co-accused Babu. In the First Information Report the firearm is shown in the hand of the accused/applicant and a specific role has been assigned to him. There are firearm injuries on the person of the deceased Mohsin. It is further contended by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that during the investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses who have supported the prosecution version categorically. Further, there is direct evidence against the accused/ applicant. After considering all the facts and circumstances, as the specific role has been assigned to the accused/applicant, the Court is of the view that the accused/applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. Accordingly the II bail application is rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.06.2008 NCM