IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (1) Criminal Bail Application No. 680 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Jai Chand ……Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand -----Opposite party (2) Criminal Bail Application No. 1179 of 2009 Kuldeep ………..Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand -------Opposite party Both arising out of Case Crime No. 21/09, U/Ss 364-A, 302 and 201/34 IPC, PS Shyampur, District Haridwar Dated: December 17, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. The applicants in both the above-said bail applications are related to the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocates for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State as well as Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. In brief the prosecution case is that on 26.3.2009 at 2:30 PM, a missing report was lodged by Rajendra Singh at RoP Ferrupur, P.S. Pathri with the averments that on 25.3.2009, his son Pushpendra had gone Jawalapur on his two-wheeler at about 1:00 PM with having a Mobile No.9756018646. On being tried to connect with the aforesaid mobile number, the same was switched off. The complainant thereafter enquired about his son from the relatives and friends, however, the whereabouts of his son Pushpendra were not made known. Thereafter, on 28.3.2009, the complainant informed to the police that on 27.3.2009, he received a telephone call whereby demand of Rs. 15.00 lacs was made from his and the voice of that person, who was calling and demanding ransom, was recognized as Kuldeep (applicant). During the course of investigation on 28.3.2009, co-accused Sandeep @ Bobby was arrested and he confessed his guilt and also disclosed the names of applicants-accused Kuldeep and Jai Chand with regard to their involvement in commission of the said crime. On the instance of Sandeep @ Bobby, the dead body of Pushpendra was recovered in presence of Nem Chand and Indra Raj Singh. The I.O. during investigation also recorded the call details of the mobile phone of deceased bearing No. 9756018646, by which the applicant-accused Kuldeep demanded ransom from the nephew of the complainant bearing No.9917185764. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no direct evidence against them so as to connect them with the aforesaid crime. Contrary to this, learned Brief Holder as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicants to connect them in commission of the aforesaid crime. It was further submitted that the I.O. during investigation has recorded the statements of last seen witnesses, namely, Kusum Raj and Sukhbeer Singh, which have been annexed as Annexure CA2 to the counter affidavit filed by the State. Those two witnesses have clearly deposed in their evidence that the deceased was last seen by them along with the applicants-accused on 15.3.2009. Further, even from a perusal of the calls details, it reveals that the applicant-accused Kuldeep had given a call on the mobile of Sonu, who is the newhew of complainant {bearing No.9917185764}. It was further argued by learned brief holder that on the pointing out of the co-accused Sandeep @ Bobby, the dead body of Pushpendra was recovered by the police. In the post- mortem report also, cause of death is shown as asphyxia due to strangulation. 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, Kusum Raj and Sukhbeer Singh; perusing the post-mortem report, call details and other material on record, the Court is of the view that the present applicants do no deserve bail at this stage. Both the bail applications are liable to be rejected and are rejected accordingly. Rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.12.2009 Rajeev Dang