IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 22nd day of February 2008 Criminal Bail application No. 108 of 2008 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Karan Chand S/o Ved Pal, R/o village Bharapur Bhaunri, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. … Applicant/appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal … Opposite party Arising out of case crime no. 156 of 07 U/Ss, 392,356,411 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Lalit Miglani Adv. holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.05.2007 at 7:30 a.m. the complainant Smt. Kusum Mittal was called by two unknown persons out side her house situated at Civil Line Kotwali Roorkee and when she came outside her house the two unknown persons have snatched two golden chains from her neck and fled away by a motorcycle. With the same averments a First Information was lodged by the complainant Kusum Mittal on the same day at 2:30 p.m. at Kotwali Roorkee, district Haridwar. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the chain which was said to be snatched from the complainant was not the same which was recovered from the possession of the accused/ applicant. On the contrary, learned Brief Holder Sri M.A. Khan has submitted that the looted chain was identified by the complainant as per the law. Learned Brief Holder has further submitted that applicant/ accused is a history-sheeter as 21 cases are registered against him. The cases registered against the accused are quoted hereunder:- No. Case Cr. No. Under Section Police Station. 1. 118/07 394 I.P.C. Jwalapur, Haridwar. 2. 178/97 459/411 I.P.C. “” 3. 239/97 ¾ Gunda Act. “” 4. 260/97 323/324 I.P.C. “” 5. 325/97 392/411 I.P.C. “” 6. 328/97 392/411 I.P.C. “” 7. 346/97 394 I.P.C. “” 8. 40/97 2/3 Gangster Act “” 9. 397/97 147,148,149,307 I.P.C. “” 10. 380/97 25 Arms Act. “” 11. 84/99 392/411 I.P.C. “” 12. 174/96 492,506,384,504 I.P.C. “” 13. 175/96 25 Arms Act. “” 14. 409/97 506 I.P.C. “” 15. 255/99 ¾ Gunda Act. “” 16. 11/2000 18/20 NDPS Act. “” 17. 100/2000 110 Cr.P.C. “” 18. 387/2000 392 I.P.C. “” 19. 82/04 328/511 I.P.C. “” 20. 79/04 356/511 I.P.C. “” 21. 156/07 392/411 I.P.C. Kotwali Roorkee. On the basis of the abovementioned criminal history, learned Brief Holder has submitted that the accused is an habitual offender and committing the similar offences after releasing on bail and he has misused the bail in number of times. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is, thus rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) February 22, 2008: NCM: