IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 21st day of October, 2005 Bail application no. 622 of 2005 Order on the bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Bhupendra Singh @ Pappu S/o Chandra Singh R/o Village Sirar Patti Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh 2. Rajendra Singh @ Narendra Singh S/o Sri Kishan Singh R/o Village Batholi Patti Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh 3. Soban Singh S/o Sri Dan Singh R/o Village Siror Patti Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh 4. Man Singh S/o Sri Bhawan Singh R/o Village Sirar Patti Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh 5. Soban Singh S/o Man Singh R/o Village Sirar Patti Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh … Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal … Opposite Party -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arising out of Case Crime No. 1 of 2005 Under Sections 302, 149 I.P.C. Patti Patwari Circle Barmo Tehsil Didihat District Pithoragarh By the court Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. The applicants have applied for bail in case crime No. 1 of 2005 under Sections 302, 149 I.P.C., Patti Patwari Circle Barmo, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh. Heard Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2…. The record reveals that the deceased was dancing in a Marriage Party. The accused persons objected to it. Thereafter, the accused persons started beating him (deceased).They also chased him upto some distance and thereafter on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The case diary further reveals that the eyewitness/injured – Tej Singh has stated in his statement that it were the accused/applicants who committed Mar Pit and caused injuries on his person. Tej Singh has also sustained injuries during the course of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicants could not show anything before me which may suggest that the injured eyewitness is an enimical terms with accused/applicants. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured/eyewitness. Having considered the role attributed to the applicants and the statement of the injured/eyewitnesses, I do not find it a fit case for bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.10.2005 ASWAL