IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IInd Bail Application No.124 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Dilshad S/o Abdul Rashid @ Munne R/o Village Umru Khurd, Thana Khatima, District U.S. Nagar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 17, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.188 of 2009 U/s 364-A of IPC P.S. Khatima, District U.S. Nagar ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail was dismissed on 5.4.2010. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. The new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant in this bail application is that the prosecution has examined the witnesses of fact in the trial court, namely, Mohd. Usman, complainant of the case as P.W.1, Asgar Ali as P.W.2 and Sri Fardia as P.W.3. None of them has supported the prosecution case in their statements and they have been declared hostile. The statements of above-named witnesses are annexed as Annexure Nos.11, 12 and 13 with this bail application. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of FIR as well as on perusal of the statement of Mohd. Usma (PW1), Asgar Ali (PW2) and Farida (PW3) recorded in the trial court, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Dilshad be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IInd Bail Application No.123 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Shahid S/o Ikbal R/o Indira Nagar Thokar, New Basti, Haldwani, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 17, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.12 of 2010 Under Sections 302, 394, 201, 411 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.6.2010. Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S. Pal, Advocate for complainant as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. He further submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime. He further argued that the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of co- accused Zaved, recorded under the police custody and, the same is not admissible as per law. He further submitted that other co-accused persons, namely, Mohan Chandra Kabadwal, Shakir and Faijal have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.4.2010, 8.6.2010 and 8.9.2010, respectively and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Shahid be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Nainital. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.685 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sachin S/o Bhagwat Prasad R/o Lower Nathanpur, P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2010 Under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. As per the prosecution story, complainant Mahendra Singh Yadav’s daughter was married to the applicant-accused Sachin on 5.10.2009. After one month of the marriage, the applicant-accused and his family members started harassing the deceased for dowry. The deceased had told her parents that the applicant-accused is demanding a motorcyle and Rs.40,000/- cash otherwise she will be killed. On the persuasion of her parents, the deceased was sent back to her in-laws’ house. On 11.6.2010 at about 9:30 AM, when her mother went to see her daughter, she found her hanging. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant-accused and his parents have committed murder of deceased Smt. Sushma for the demand of dowry. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that it is a case of dowry death and there are specific allegations against the present applicant-accused. He further submitted that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to the demand of dowry and soon before her death, she was being harassed by the present applicant for the demand of dowry. He has further submitted that the applicant, being the husband, is bound to prove as to how the deceased Smt. Sushma has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. After considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of the applicant-accused and that she was being harassed by the applicant due to demand of dowry soon before her death, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.838 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Vikaram Singh S/o Kishan Singh R/o Pirtikot Patwari Kshetra Deghat, District Almora ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2010 Under Sections 323, 494, 498A, 427, 307 of IPC Registered at Patwari Kshetra Challani Nayab, Tehsildar Bhikiyasen, District Almora ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution story is that marriage of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi was solemnized with the applicant- accused 25-30 years back and later on accused solemnized second marriage 8-9 years back. Injured Nirmala Devi opposed the second marriage of applicant-accused and on that account the applicant wants to thrown her from house and maltreated her on one way and other. In the marriage of her elder daughter, applicant-accused contributed nothing. On 25.5.2010, Jagat Singh, brother of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, got a telephone call from her niece (daughter of injured) that the applicant-accused has thrown all the belongings of Smt. Nirmala Devi from the house and he also wants to turn out Smt. Nirmala Devi from her house. When Smt. Nirmala Devi resisted this act of the applicant-accused, he by means of Chapar, a weapon used to cut meat, inflicted a number of blows on her due to which she received serious injuries. Due to fear of the applicant-accused, son and daughter of Smt. Nirmala Devi are not taking her to hospital. Even the other people of village are not helping her due to his fear. On this information, complainant came from Haridwar on 26.5.2010 and saw the condition of his sister, who was drenched with blood. He admitted her in Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance 108. Injured was medically examined at C.H.C. Bhikiyasen on 26.5.2010 at about 9 PM and a number of injuries were found on her person which were caused by Chapar. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State vehemently argued that as many as eight injuries were found on the person of Smt. Nirmala Devi which are on vital part and dangerous to life. Thus, the contents of the FIR get full corroboration from the medical evidence. A perusal of the First Information Report and the medical report of the injured and the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie indicates that the injuries were caused to Smt. Nirmala Devi by the applicant-accused with intention to kill her and even her children and the villagers did not find the courage to take her to hospital due to fear of the applicant-accused and when the brother of the injured came to her house then she was taken to Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance 108. Further, eight injuries have been received by the injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, out of which six are on the head i.e. vital part. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IInd Bail Application No.120 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rashid S/o Rafeeq R/o Line No.16, Azad Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.12 of 2010 Under Sections 302, 394, 201, 411 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.4.2010 and that was not dismissed on merit. Heard Mr. Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the said crime. It is further submitted that the only evidence against the applicant is the confessional statement of co-accused Javed recorded in the police custody, which is not admissible as per law. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sakir and Faizal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.6.2010 and 8.9.2010, respectively, and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Rashid be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Nainital. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.842 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mohammad Shah S/o Akhtar Shah R/o Baghauri, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.49 of 2010 Under Section 302 of IPC, P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the said crime. Learned Addl. GA for the State has also submitted that no other evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicant except that of last seen evidence. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Mohammad Shah be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.841 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Viney Kumar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar R/o Village Society Road Laksar, P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2010 Under Sections 302, 201 of IPC P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the prosecution case the deceased Sushma Rani died in the night of 4/5.4.2010 and the FIR of the said incident was lodged on 5.4.2010 at 02:30 AM by the applicant-accused Vinay Kumar himself. It is further submitted that on 11.7.2010 and 12.7.2010 i.e. after about more than three months of the said incident, statements of Kharak Singh, Tej Singh, Deepak Verma, Vivek Verma and Smt. Pratibha were recorded and in their statements all these witnesses have stated that the applicant-accused has confessed his guilt about the said crime in the police station on 5.4.2010, which creates a reasonable doubt on the conduct of these witnesses that why they did not disclose the same fact on the same day in the police station and remained silent for about three months. It is further argued that except the statement of above-named persons, no other evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicant-accused. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR; statement of above-named persons and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Viney Kumar be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.825 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Naveen Chandra Arya S/o Yagya Dutt Arya R/o Parvati Palace, Shakti Vihar, Near Old ITI, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of CBI Case No.7/2010 U/Ss 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 CBI, SPE Dehradun ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Arvind Vashitha, Standing Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and the I.O. has not collected any credible evidence against him, during investigation. Contrary to this, learned standing counsel for the respondent has stated that during investigation, it has come in the evidence that the applicant- accused N.C. Arya, the then Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Haldwani abused his official position as public servant, entered into criminal conspiracy with the private persons and cheated the Bank of Baroda for an amount of Rs.1,12,70,000/- approx. by sanctioning and disbursing loans on the basis of fake and forged documents as mentioned in the chargesheets filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun on 25.6.2010 and all these persons including valuer of the properties Sri Sanjeev Kumar Verma have also been chargesheeted. It is submitted that all the loans were sanctioned by the applicant- accused without adhering to the bank guidelines. The documents relating to assets or business being carried out by the borrowers or the guarantors of loans namely copies of ownership of asset, business, balance-sheet, profit and loss statement, bank statement etc. were not taken on record before the disbursement of loan by the applicant-accused, thereby violating the mandatory guideline of the Bank for consideration and sanction of home loan. The applicant- accused did not properly conduct the mandatory pre and post physical inspection of the properties. It is also submitted that the persons who are instrumental in submission of fake sale deed showing them as genuine sale deeds have also been charge-sheeted along with the applicant-accused. It is further submitted that the person who were instrumental in opening of account in the fictitious names through which the defrauded amount was withdrawn have also been charge- sheeted along with the applicant-accused. A perusal of the First Information Report and the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie indicates that the applicant-accused N.C. Arya, in the capacity of public servant, posted as Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Haldwani, abused his official position as public servant, entered into criminal conspiracy with the private persons and cheated the Bank of Baroda for an amount of Rs.1,12,70,000/- approx. by sanctioning and disbursing loans on the basis of fake and forged documents. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.824 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Basant Kumar S/o Chaman Lal 2. Jaibeer S/o Sukhbeer Both R/o Dhanpura, P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar ..….Applicants (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.8/29/2010 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 506 of IPC P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the complainant. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 22.2.2010 at 5:30 PM, Pawan Kumar lodged a First Information Report at Reporting Outpost Pherupur, District Haridwar against the applicants and seven other co-accused with the allegations that in the morning of 22.2.2010 at about 7 AM, the applicants along with co-accused caused injuries to Prithvi Singh and when Kishan Singh, Pawan Kumar, Atri Devi, Mange Ram, Monu came for his rescue, the accused persons also caused injuries to the above-named persons. Due to the injuries received in the said incident, Prithvi Singh died. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is a cross version also in which the FIR was got lodged by Smt. Mirta W/o Sukhveer against the accused Prithvi, Kishan, Bishan, Pawan, Sonu, Ashok and Sonu S/o Bishan alleging that they have caused injuries to accused side. He further submitted that these are the cross cases and the injuries are on both the parties i.e. on the side of complainant and accused persons and at this stage it cannot be ascertained that which of the party is the aggressor. It is further submitted that all the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the police has submitted final report in respect of the FIR lodged by the accused side. In this regard, Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that till date the applicants has not received any notices from the court concerned with regard to submission of the final report and the investigation is still going on. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of both the FIRs; injury reports and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants Basant Kumar and Jaibeer be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.736 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Tejpal S/o Ganga Ram R/o Village Ajitpur, Police Station Kichha, District U.S. Nagar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.65/2010 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 324 of IPC P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 29.3.2010 at 7:10 PM, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant Tej Pal and co-accused Jamuna Prasad, Bhup Ram and Hori Lal with the allegations that they have caused injuries to Khirendra, Karanpal and Kanta Prasad with knife. This FIR was registered at P.S. Devarniya but as the matter was related to P.S. Kichcha, therefore, it was transferred to P.S. Kiccha and registered as FIR No.65 of 2010 under Sections 147/148/149/308/324/323 of IPC. He further submitted that there is a cross version also in which the FIR was lodged by Jamuna Prasad at Police Station Kichcha on 30.3.2010 at 9:10 AM against Karan Pal, Khilendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad with the allegations that on 29.3.2010 Karanpal, Khirendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad caused injuries to Prempal, Pintu and Bhupal. He further submitted that these are the cross cases and the injuries are on both the parties i.e. on the side of complainant and accused persons and at this stage it cannot be ascertained that which of the party is the aggressor. It is further submitted that the co-accused Jamuna Prasad, Bhup Ram and Hori Lal have already been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of both the FIRs; injury reports and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Tej Pal