IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 24th day of December, 2009 1st Bail Application No. 774 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Istakeem .…. Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Crime No. 2473/2007, U/s 395, 397, 412 IPC P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. _______________________________________________________________ December 24, 2009 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the accused applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 14.5.2007, a report was lodged by the complainant Dr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma with the averments that about 1.30 am, when he was sleeping in his house along with his children, 6-7 unknown persons intruded into his house by breaking the grill of the window. Two miscreants on the point of country made pistol, kept him silent and they looted Rs. 98,000/- and other articles like jewellery, laptop, camera, mobile, watch, etc. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation the accused applicant and other co-accused came into light. The present accused applicant surrendered before the court concerned and he was taken into police remand and on the pointing out of the present accused applicant some looted articles were recovered. The I.O. after completion of the investigation has filed the chargesheet against the accused applicant and other co-accused. Learned State Counsel submitted that identification parade was held in the jail and the complainant had identified the present accused applicant. He has also submitted that the name of present accused applicant has been taken by the other co-accused in his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He further submitted that the accused applicant has long criminal history as has been mentioned in the rejection order dated 6.7.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which is Annexure 5 to the bail application, wherein 16 cases have been shown against the accused applicant, which are reproduced as under: (i) Crime No. 1872/2002, u/s 379/411 IPC, Almora, (ii) Crime No. 354/2002, u/s 2/3 Gangster Act, Ranikhet, (iii) Crime No. 82/2005, u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (iv) Crime No. 187/2008, u/s 307 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (v) Crime No. 1064/2005, u/s 3/4 Gunda Act, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (vi) Crime No. 476/2006, u/s 460 IPC, PS Bhagatpur, Distrct Moradabad, (vii) Crime No. 2473/2007, u/s 396/397/412 IPC, PS Kashipur, (viii) Crime No. 5830/2007, u/s 395/397 IPC, PS Kashipur, (ix) Crime No. 471/2007, u/s 457/380/411 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (x) Crime No. 472/2007, u/s 398/401 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (xi) Crime No. Nil/2007, u/s 411 IPC & 41/102 CrPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (xii) Crime No. 503/2007, u/s 307 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (xiii) Crime No. 473/2007, u/s 307 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (xiv) Crime No. 297/2008, u/s 307 IPC, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, (xv) Crime No. 298/2008, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad, and (xvi) Crime No. 2099/2008, u/s 18/20 NDPS Act, PS Bhojpur, District Moradabad. 2 Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR and other papers available on record; in view of fact that accused applicant has been identified by the complainant and recovery has been made on the pointing out of the accused applicant and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the accused applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.12.2009 PRABODH 3