IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.308 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Raghuveer Singh Negi ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 16, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.01 of 2010 Under Sections 304 and 504 IPC Revenue Police Station Koti, District Tehri Garhwal ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narayan Singh Negi, Advocate for the applicant as well as Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 20.12.2010 Rajma Devi lodged a FIR at P.S. Koti with the averments that on the basis of her application, Tehsildar, the present applicant, arrested her husband Vijay Singh for enquiry on 18.12.2010. She alleged that at the time of arrest the applicant was in intoxicated condition. She was also taken into the room forcibly. Her minor child was also with her to whom the applicant asked to sit outside the room. She further alleged that the applicant uttered bad words to her and asked her to go home and to bring money tomorrow for bail of her husband. She reached in her house at about 8 PM and at about 10 PM she got the information through Village Pradhan that her husband has committed suicide. She alleged that her husband was physically and mentally fit and she has full confidence that the applicant alongwith other employees, under the state of intoxication, has committed murder of her husband by beating him. With the same averments, Smt. Rajma Devi lodged the FIR at P.S. Koti against Nayab Tehsildar Raghuveer Singh Negi on 20.12.2010. Sri Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant has not committed murder of the deceased Vijay Singh and he has falsely been implicated in the above-said case. Contrary to this, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State argued that the deceased Vijay Singh has died in the custody of the applicant- accused. At the time of arrest, there was no injury on the body of Vijay Singh (deceased) as mentioned in the arrest memo, however, in the post-mortem following three ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- (i) Fracture right temporal bone depressed 4 cm x 3 cm. (ii) Fracture left temporal bone depressed 2 cm x 2 cm. (iii) A dull ligature mark reddish brown 8 cm x 25 cm extended from right ear lobule 5 cm below to 6 cm below left ear lobule and just above thyroid cartilage in front. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 19.2.2010 at 6 PM and as per the post-mortem report the deceased has died 18-30 hours before, which clearly shows that these injuries were caused to the deceased in the lock-up. Thus, the contents of the FIR get corroborated from the post-mortem report. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of the FIR; perusing the post-mortem report; and the fact that the applicant has died due to ante-mortem injuries caused to him by the applicant in the lock-up, as well as on perusing the other material available on record, I am of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.03.2010 RG