IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.1066 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Farmaan Ali ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 16, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.298 of 2009 Under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120-B of IPC P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State as well as Sri Sri Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the complainant and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 20.6.2009 Ishaq Ahmad lodged a FIR at P.S. Kashipur with the averments that his daughter Shabana was married to the applicant 15 years before. On 30.5.2009 he went to in-laws house of his daughter to enquire about her well-being then the in-laws of his daughter told him that they have no knowledge about her. Thereafter he made search of his daughter at various places but could not find her. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant Farman Ali alongwith Shamshad Hussain, Dilshad Hussain and Iliyas Ahmad has kept his daughter in some secret place and he has doubt that they might do something wrong with her daughter. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete against the applicant so as to connect him with the above-said crime. Contrary to this, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State has argued that the skeleton of the deceased was recovered on 26.6.2009 on the pointing out of the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has solemnized another marriage and before the death of the deceased the applicant used to harass her. Because of the harassment committed upon her by the applicant, the deceased had filed a complaint against the applicant u/s 498A/323 IPC. She had also moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband (applicant). Further, an application was also moved by her on 30.03.2009 in the court of S.D.M regarding misbehaviour of the applicant towards her. One more application u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C had also been filed by the deceased against the applicant on which the notices were issued to the applicant. He further argued that in the case diary it is recorded by the I.O. that when on 30.5.2009 the deceased had come in the court then the applicant had taken her to his house on his motor cycle where quarrel took place between them and then the applicant committed her murder by throttling her neck and with the help of another co-accused the applicant thrown the dead body of Shabana in a pond. He further argued all the above circumstances complete the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the applicant-accused so as to connect him with the aforesaid crime. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of FIR and other papers available on file, I am of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.03.2010 RG