IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 19th day of November 2009 Ist Bail Application No.629 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Vinod Singh .…. Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No 11 of 2009, U/s 302, 201, 120B/34, 394, 411, 420, 427, 396/412 I.P.C Patwari Circle Ranichauri, District Tehri Garhwal. _______________________________________________________________ November 19, 2009 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the accused applicant, Sri Amit Bhatt, Additional G.A. for the State and Sri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 2.2.2009, Gram Pradhan Harshmani informed the concerned Patwari on phone that a semi burnt body was lying in the jungle. This report was also made to Naib Tehsildar and SDM. Panchayatnama was prepared on 3.2.2009. A car was found in unclaimed state near some hotel. On search of the papers in the car, from its registration Subhash Gupta was found to be the owner. His family members were informed. Then on 4.2.2009, on suspicion the half burnt dead body was recognized by the son-in-law of the deceased as the body of Subhash Gupta. Then the FIR was lodged on 5.2.2009. Subhash Gupta was residing in Ranichauri in his house where he was having a maid servant Radha. She was named in the FIR. On suspicion, Radha was arrested and on her statement, two persons Shakti Prasad and Surendra Bhatt came into light as co- accused. The I.O. made them co-accused during the 2 course of investigation. Accused applicant himself surrendered in the court on 17.3.2009. He was taken on police remand by the I.O. and during the remand period, a laptop was shown to be recovered on 24.3.2009 from the forest on the pointing out of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the I.O. has recorded the statement of Radha on 6.2.2009, but she had not stated anything about the involvement of the accused applicant in the said crime. Later on when her statement was again recorded on 15.4.2009, then she disclosed the name of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that since she did not disclose the name of the accused applicant when her statement was recorded on first time on 6.2.2009 and after more than two months, when her statement was again recorded on 15.4.2009, then she disclosed the name of the accused applicant, therefore, her statement is not reliable. He further argued that in the FIR, it was not mentioned that a laptop was also looted or robbed at the time of murder and the FIR was lodged after five days of the said incident and even the State or the complainant has not filed any evidence in the counter affidavit that the said laptop was actually belonging to the deceased Subhash Gupta. He has further stated that the recovery of laptop shown to be made on 24.3.2009 was actually not recovered on the pointing out of the accused applicant. He further submitted that it creates doubt about the said recovery because of the fact that a costly item like a laptop cannot be concealed in the forest. He also argued that the chain of circumstances to prove the involvement of the accused applicant in the said crime is not complete and proved and no evidence has been collected by the I.O. to connect the accused applicant with the aforesaid crime. He lastly submitted that the trial is yet to start and the accused 3 applicant is in jail since 17.3.2009 and there is no criminal history against him. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Vinod Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Tehri Garhwal. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.11.2009 PRABODH