IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 15th day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 504 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Neeraj Tiwari .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No. 49 of 2009 (ST No. 06/2010), U/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC, PS Kaladhungi, District Nainital. _______________________________________________________________ June 15, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Manju Kotaliya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Heard. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 22.8.2009 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant Sher Singh Kanwal was having dinner in Union Restaurant along with his brother-in-law Balwant Singh Kanyal (Block Pramukh), Rajeev Kumar Valia, Bhupal Singh and Khushal Singh. After sometime accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari and co- accused Neeraj Harwil came there along with his 3-4 other companions and started abusing Balwant Singh Kanyal. When Balwant Singh Kanyal asked the reason then they started scuffling with him. Soon thereafter police of PS Kaladhungi came there and took away the accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari and his companions as well as Balwant Singh Kanyal to the police station. After sometime, the complainant along with his companions also reached at the police station and at about 10.30 to 11.45 pm saw that Balwant Singh Kanyal was shot in his head by accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari in the presence of police inside the police station. Balwant Singh Kanyal died on the spot. The dead body was taken to Base Hospital, Haldwani by the police at 12 hours in the midnight where the Doctors declared him dead. With these averments FIR was lodged by Sher Singh Kanwal with PS Haldwani. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC are contradictory to each other and do not support the prosecution case. He further argued that it was averred on behalf of prosecution that the accused applicant had shot thrice on the deceased Balwant Singh Kanyal but only one bullet injury has been shown on the body of deceased which is contradictory to the prosecution story. Opposing the bail application of the accused applicant, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that the applicant shot Balwant Singh Kanyal with intention to kill him and when he was arrested by the police on 24.8.2009, the pistol used in the commission of offence and three cartridges were recovered from his possession. Statements of Khushal Singh, Constable Dan Giri, Bhupal Singh Rawat, SI Pratap Singh Negi, C.O. Harish Chandra Sati, Satish Joshi, Constable Sanjay Kumar and complainant Sher Singh Kanwal and copy of arrest/recovery memo have also been annexed along with the counter affidavit of State, which corroborate the prosecution story as well as the version made in the FIR. Learned Addl. GA further argued that post mortem report also corroborate the version of FIR which shows that the firearm wound, entry wound, exist wound and lacerated wound on the body of deceased. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR, recovery memo, statements of the witnesses recorded 2 under Section 161 CrPC, post mortem report and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant and credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. to prove the involvement of accused applicant in the alleged crime and after the investigation chargesheet has also been filed. Applicant is the main accused and specific role of firing by the pistol has been assigned to him and due to the said firearm injury Balwant Singh Kanyal died. Hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the seriousness of the offence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.6.2010 PRABODH 3