1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 18th Day of September, 2010. IIIrd Bail Application No. 16 of 2010 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Vimal S/o Sri Pratap Singh R/o Vishnupur Colony Tanakpur, Dist Champawat ….….Applicant(In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ………..Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2005 Under Section: 364, 394, 397, 302, 411, 201,and 120B I.P.C Police Station: Tanakpur District: Champawat Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. A.S.Rawat, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A, Present for the State. This is Third Bail Application moved on behalf of the applicant Vimal, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2005, relating to offences punishable Under Section 364, 394, 397, 302, 411, 201 and 120 B I.P.C., Police Station Tanakpur, District Champawat. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. The first bail application was rejected on merits of 22.02.2007. The second bail application was rejected on merits of 01.08.2007. It is a case of dare devil robbery in which after after a jeweller was along with his driver and MUNEEM was abducted, and robbed, and thereafter all the three murdered. Prosecution case is that the looted property was recovered pointing out the accused persons including the applicant. Perusal of the papers on record suggest that as many as 14 witnesses have already been examined during trial. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact relating to recovery on pointing out of applicant Vimal, is not proved on the record. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this court does not find any new ground to grant the bail at this stage. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the third bail application is rejected. (Prafulla.C.Pant.,J) Dt. 18.09.2010 NP