IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.448 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Nafees S/o Tahir R/o Village Khatka, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.479 of 2009, U/s 302/120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar Dated: April 21, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State as well as Mohd. Safdar, Adv. for complainant. In brief the prosecution case is that Naveen Jindal was murdered at about 8:30 PM on 8.12.2009 at the gate of his house in Roorkee. FIR of the same incident was lodged in the intervening night of 8/9.12.2009 at 00:30 AM. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA. argued that the present applicant/accused along with co-accused Manga Tyagi and Praveen Balmiki committed the murder of Naveen Jindal for the reason that the brother of deceased, namely, Pankaj Jindal failed to pay the ransom as demanded by co-accused Sunil Rathi, who is a hardened criminal. He further stated that Kallu, Irfan and Firoz had last seen the present applicant on the relevant date and time at the place of occurrence and these facts have been stated by them in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further stated that witness Kamil also stated that on 8.12.2009 in the court at about 2 PM, he heard the co-accused Sunil Rathi while talking with the 2 present applicant and other co-accused for committing the murder of the deceased and in the night of 8.12.2009 itself at about 8:30 PM, Naveen Jindal was murdered. He further submitted that as per the statements of witnesses and the other evidence as collected by the I.O., there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant to prove his involvement in the commission of said crime i.e. of committing the murder of Naveen Jindal. Besides above, the applicant is also having a criminal history, which is as follows: - 1. Case Crime No.290/01 U/s 302 IPC P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar 2. Case Crime No.12/06 U/s 452/323/504/506 IPC P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar 3. Case Crime No.479/09 U/s 302/120-B IPC P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar 4. Case Crime No.1/10 U/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar On the basis of above criminal history, it was further argued by learned Addl. G.A. that the applicants is a habitual criminal who is involved in doing the same type of offences one after another. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and also considering the criminal history of the applicant, perusing the statements of witnesses Irfan, Kallu, Firoz and Kamil and also seeing the gravity of the offence, 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.) 21.04.2010 Rajeev Dang