IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 9th day of April, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 77 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sudhir .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 39/2008, U/s 302, 120B & 34 IPC, PS Rishikesh, District Dehradun. April 9, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is this that a report was lodged by the co-accused Kanchan Verma against unknown persons with the contents that on 4.2.2008 at about 7.30 pm after closing his shop situated at Virpur Khurd, he was coming to his house with his friend and workman Probir. Probir was the pillion rider. When they reached near Ram Nagar Veer Bhadra Road, Rishikesh a red coloured motorcycle Hero Honda came from behind. The pillion rider of that motorcycle fired on them and the bullet hit his workman Probir and he fell down. In the meanwhile, the miscreants had looted the jewellery and cash which was kept in the diggy of motorcycle. The miscreants had also looted his mobile Nokia 1100, no. 9411729942. Thereafter he admitted Probir in hospital and after giving some treatment the doctors declared him as dead. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 8.35 pm in PS Rishikesh. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Contrary to it, learned Addl. GA for the State submitted that accused applicant is a hardened criminal and he along with co-accused Rupesh Tyagi committed the murder of Probir and looted the jewellary and cash and was arrested on 6.3.2008 by the police and a pistol used in the said crime and a Nokia Mobile Phone 1100 2 was recovered from his possession and there is ample evidence collected by the IO which proves the involvement of the applicant accused in the said crime. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no ground to release the accused applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Dharam Veer, J.) 9.4.2010 PRABODH