IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.116 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Intezar S/o Bhura ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.281 of 2009, U/s 392/411 IPC, P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar Dated: March 26, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that FIR was lodged by complainant Atul Rastogi with the averments that on 4.10.2009 at 7 AM, when he was busy with his maid servant in cleaning the corridor of his house, at that time, when his wife was in kitchen, then suddenly two persons came there and took the complainant along with his maid servant to the kitchen where already two persons were present with the wife of complainant. Thereafter, those persons locked the complainant along with his wife, daughter and maidservant in the temple room and robbed the money and ornaments. After that the applicant was arrested by the police on 7.10.2009 and on his pointing out, a necklace, earrings, golden ring and golden chain were recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed the above said crime. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA submitted that the looted ornaments and articles viz. golden chain, earrings (TOPS), and necklace were said to be recovered on his pointing out. He further argued that the applicant has also got a criminal history which is as follows: - 1. Case Crime No.257 of 2009 U/s 394 IPC, P.S. Laksar 2. Case Crime No.352 of 2009 U/s 392/411 IPC, P.S. Manglaur 3. Case Crime No.369 of 2009 U/s 392 IPC, P.S. Roorkee On the basis of the above said criminal history, learned Addl. GA argued that the applicant is a professional criminal and he is doing the same types of offences again and again. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and considering the criminal history of the applicant as quoted above and the fact that the recovery was made on the pointing out of the applicant, as well as on perusing the other papers available on record, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.03.2010 Rajeev Dang