IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 23rd day of May 2008 II Criminal Bail Application No.1481 of 2007 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Hansa Singh Negi, S/o Heera Singh R/o Village Jakh, Tehsil Talla Salt, P.S. Bhatrojkhan, District Almora. ….Applicant(In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------ Opposite party Dated: 23rd May 2008 ____________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.435 of 2007 U/S.302, 307, 201, 394 I.P.C. P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 31.07.2007 and that was not decided on merits. In brief the prosecution case is that on 11.03.2007 when Shobhit Agarwal (deceased) along with Amar Agarwal has gone for evening walk then, both these two persons were kidnapped by Lalit Belwal, Kanno Manral, Rohit Tiwari alias Raju and other persons in a vehicle. Later on, Shobhit Agarwal was killed by these persons and Amar Agarwal was injured. With the same averments, the F.I.R. was lodged by Girish Kumar, father of deceased Shobhit Agarwal on 12.03.2007 at 05.00 P.M. in Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement of Amar Agarwal (injured witness) was recorded in the trial court and he has not stated anything against the applicant-accused. Learned Addl. GA has submitted that on the basis of the single evidence of Amar Agarwal, the trial could not be decided. There are also other evidence against the applicant-accused, which the prosecution will produce and the trial is in continuation. Hence, on the basis of the single evidence, no inference can be drawn in favour of the applicant- accused. Learned Addl. GA for the State has submitted that deceased Shobhit Agarwal was kidnapped in a Bolero car bearing No.DL 8C J 9307, which belongs to the applicant- accused Hansa Singh Negi. He has filed the supplementary counter affidavit in which he has stated that the said Bolero was registered in the name of Yudh Veer Singh Chauhan and on 05.01.2007, he handed over the said vehicle to one Ramesh Tadiyal. Later, on 17.01.2007 Ramesh Tadiyal handed over the said Bolero no. DL 8C J 9307 to applicant-accused Hansa Singh Negi. With the same averments, Ramesh Tadiyal had filed an application before the S.S.P., Nainital on 31.03.2007 along with an affidavit which have been annexed as Annexure Nos. S.C.A.1 & S.C.A.2 respectively to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by State. He has further submitted that the said Bolero was sent by the Investigating Officer for the forensic examination and the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Field Unit, Kumaon Range, Nainital, Camp Office Haldwami has opined vide his report dated 31.03.2007 that the said Bolero no.DL8C-J-9307 was used in the murder of Shobhit Agarwal, and for that he has filed the forensic report i.e. Annexure No.S.C.A.4 to the supplementary counter affidavit. He has further submitted that Mobile No.9411430735 belongs to the applicant-accused Hansa Singh Negi and at the time of the incident, according to the detailed Calls Report, there were various calls made from this mobile number to other mobile No.9917258676 and No.9759025353 belonging to the co-accused Lalit Belwal and Kannu Manral just before the incident and also after the incident. He has also filed the photocopy of the detailed call reports, which is annexed as Annexure No.S.C.A.5 filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit. He has further submitted that applicant-accused has a criminal history which is mentioned in para 22 of the second bail application moved by the applicant-accused which is reproduced as under: - 1. Crime No.33/2007 u/Ss.147, 307, 506, 427, I.P.C. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. 2. Crime No.01/2007 u/Ss.144, 504, 435 I.P.C., Patwari Area Machod, Almora. 3. NCR No.08/2004 u/Ss.352, 323, 504 I.P.C. P.S. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. 4. NCR No.04/2005 u/Ss.352, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. 5. NCR No.05/2005 u/Ss.352, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. 6. NCR No.06/2005 u/Ss.427 I.P.C. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. 7. NCR No.07/2006 u/Ss.323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Bhatrojkhan, Almora. Except this, the case was registered against the applicant-accused under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. On the basis of above said criminal history, learned Addl. GA for the State has submitted that the applicant-accused has long criminal history and he is a criminal by nature. He has further submitted that he is habitual of committing crime. On the basis of the above said annexures filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit, he has submitted that applicant-accused is directly connected with the said crime and the said Bolero vehicle which was owned by the applicant- accused, though the car was purchased by the applicant- accused and was in his possession, but the registration of the said Bolero was not transferred in the name of the applicant- accused. The said Bolero vehicle was under the physical control and possession of the applicant-accused on the date of the said incident. He has further submitted that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of Arjun Singh Rawat, Deepak Sharma, and Gopal Singh Adhikari. From their statements, it reveals that the said Bolero car was used by the applicant- accused at the time of the incident, before the time of the incident and also after the time of the incident. He has further submitted that the applicant-accused was involved in the said crime and the trial is pending before the trial court. From the evidence discussed above, the Investigating Officer has collected the sufficient evidence to connect the applicant-accused with the said crime and prima facie there is ample evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation that the said Bolero car, which was used in the said crime to kidnap the deceased Shobhit Agarwal and injured Amar Agarwal, belonged to the present applicant- accused and the same was in the physical control of the applicant-accused on the date of the incident, before the incident and after the incident also. From the telephone calls also, it reveals that the applicant-accused was also involved in the said crime and he was in the close touch with each of other co-accused after the incident and before the incident. From the discussions as made above, I do not find any ground to release the applicant-accused on bail. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. Hence, the bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.05.2008 Arti