IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.965 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Dinesh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.28/09 U/Ss 302 IPC, P.S. Kaladhungi, Distt. Nainital Dated: December 17, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that the deceased Harpal had adopted his wife’s elder sister’s son Dinesh (applicant) as his son. After sometime, Harpal was also blessed with a son. Deceased Harpal also got opened a shop to the applicant-accused after getting him married. However, the applicant-accused used to quarrel due to his share in the property of Harpal. In the morning of 25.6.2009, dead body of Harpal was found in his new house. It was also averted in the FIR that the applicant- accused committed the murder of Harpal sometime in the night of 24.6.2009. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Rajeev on 25.6.2009 at 8:20 AM at P.S. Kaladhungi, Distt. Nainital. The State has filed a counter affidavit along with which the statements recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Rajeev (complainant), Kaushal, Mahipal, Jeevan Lal and Vikram Kumar have been annexed who have supported the prosecution case. On the basis of the above-said evidence of those witnesses, learned Brief Holder submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant-accused so as to connect him with the aforesaid crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no direct evidence against him and he has falsely been implicated. Per contra, learned brief holder submitted that on the basis of the statements of witnesses annexed with the counter affidavit, at this stage, it is established that the applicant-accused is involved in commission of the aforesaid crime. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of the FIR; statements of the witnesses, namely, Rajeev, Kaushal, Mahipal, Jeevan Lal and Vikram and other material available on record, the Court is of the view that the present applicant does no deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. Rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.12.2009 Rajeev Dang