1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 7th day of September, 2011 IInd Bail Application No. 52 of 2011 Criminal Side Amit @ Monu S/o Sri Ashok Gujjar R/o Village Dhamaat P.S. Pukazi District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P) …….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…..Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2010 Under Sections: 364A of I.P.C. Police Station: Kotwali Roorkee District: District Hardwar Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.C.Pathak, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. S.K.Shandilya, Advocate, present for the complainant. Mr. T.C.Aggarwal, Additional G.A., present for the State. 2 Heard. Applicant– Amit @ Monu, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 186 of 2010, relating to offence punishable under section 364A of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Hardwar, (Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2010) has sought his release on bail. The First Bail Application was rejected on 09.12.2010, by this court, on merits. This is Second Bail Application. The grounds mentioned in the second bail application are not new, nor related to subsequent development to the rejection of first bail application. Learned counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that all the seven prosecution witnesses so far examined have supported the prosecution story. Undoubtedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, but since no new ground has been made out in the present case, as such, this court is not inclined to grant the bail at this stage. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the second bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.07.09.2011 Nahid 3