IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 23rd day of March, 2010 2nd Bail Application No. 23 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Veer Pal .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 278/2009, U/s 395, 412 IPC, PS Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. _______________________________________________________________ March 23, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Heard. First bail application of the accused applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 15.3.2010 passed by this Court. Hence, the second bail application has been moved on his behalf. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 20.10.2009, the complainant Mahendra Giri was going from village Maiti to Bhogpur Shiv Stone Crasher by his tractor Mahendra UP12C- 2391-475. At about 07.30 PM, the applicant and two other co- accused took over his tractor. All the three accused persons got into the tractor of the complainant and started beating him. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant and the co- accused looted the said tractor of the complainant. With these averments, the complainant Mahendra Giri lodged an FIR on the same day at 11.50 PM with PS Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. On 6.11.2009, the said looted tractor/trolley was recovered from the possession of the present applicant and the co-accused. Later on, the complainant also identified the applicant after his arrest. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in the said case. Per contra, learned Additional GA for the State argued that though the applicant is not named in the FIR but the looted tractor/trolley has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and other co-accused and the applicant has also been identified by the complainant, which proves the involvement of the applicant in the said crime. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR; recovery memo and other papers available on record, prima facie indicates the involvement of accused applicant in the alleged crime and the Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out. Bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.3.2010 PRABODH 2