IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.993 of 2011 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Girwar Agarwal @ Lala .…Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ……..Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2011 U/Ss 302/120-B I.P.C., Thana Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal Dated: November 8, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. Heard Sri Kurban Ali, Advocate for the applicant and Sri S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in the intervening night of 17/18.5.2011, Smt. Kali and her husband Veer Pal @ Arjun, while asleep, were assassinated by some unknown assailants. Their bodies, poured in the pool of blood, stabbed at several places including throat and stomach, were found lying on their bed. The FIR was lodged by Sonu, brother of deceased Veer Pal. The investigation revealed that the accused Girwar Agarwal used to revel with Smt. Kali, and in consideration of the same, besides other obligations, he promised for giving a plot of land to her. The rates of the land shooted up, so the applicant began to advert his non-inclination for giving the land to Smt. Kali. At this, Smt. Kali threatened him to spill the beans. So, the applicant hatched a conspiracy and hired the criminals, named, Mukhi Ram, Mukesh, Rajveer, Chhotu Sardar and Tika Ram, for a consideration of Rs.3.00 lacs; half of the amount was paid before the occurrence while rest of the same was promised to be paid after the accomplishment of task. So, all these accused persons, named above, having their 2 complicity in the crime, performed their task in sundry ways, resulting assassination of Smt. Kali and her husband Veer Pal. Out of the above named accused persons, Tika Ram, Mukesh and Rajveer have been enlarged on bail by this Court while Mukhi Ram, on whose instance the bloodstained clothes were recovered, is still awaiting for being considered to be set at large. The same is the case in respect of Chhotu Sardar and the present applicant Girwar Agarwal. Learned counsel on behalf of the applicant has argued that this is a case of mere circumstantial evidence wherein not a least indication is there towards the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of crime. On the other hand, learned AGA on behalf of State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence available in the case diary, including that of the statement of the present applicant, confessing the entire story, narrated above. In the opinion of the Court, the entire evidence is not be analyzed at this stage and there is a formidable evidence against the present applicant Girwar Agarwal, who is the real perpetrator of the crime. Hence, this bail application has no force, which is liable to be rejected. Bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) November 8, 2011 Rajeev Dang