IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.293 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Shailendra @ Shailu S/o Jot Singh R/o Village Maud, P.S. Chamba District Tehri Garhwal ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: April 5, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. of 2009 (S.T. No.14/2009) u/Ss 302/34, 201/34, 120(B), 396, 427/34, 404 and 412 of IPC Patwari Circle Rani Chauri, District Tehri Garhwal ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 5.2.2009 complainant Prateek Garodia lodged a First Information Report with the averments that the dead body of his father- in-law Subhash Chandra Gupta was found and he has doubt that his father-in-law has been murdered by the maid servant Radha Thapa, who had left her work about month ago. During the course of investigation, articles were found scattered in the room of the deceased and blood was also found in the room and kitchen of the deceased. It has also come in the evidence that the deceased was murdered by causing injuries to him and by pressing his neck. After the death of the deceased, dead body of the deceased was taken in the forest by car and there the dead body was burnt by pouring petrol on it. On 7.3.2009, the applicant/accused was arrested by the police and on his pointing out, Samsung T.V. and room heater of the deceased was recovered from his shop. During investigation, it has also come in the evidence that from the A.T.M. of the deceased Rs.27,877/- was withdrawn by the applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that the applicant/accused is not named in the FIR and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant/accused. Contrary to this, learned Additional G.A. for the State strongly opposed the bail of the applicant and stated that during investigation, the I.O. has collected ample evidence against the applicant/accused which clearly shows his involvement in the said crime. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of FIR as well as the recovery memo and other papers available in file; I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 05.04.2010 RG