IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 1st December, 2008 1st Bail Application No. 823 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused Sandeep S/o Shri Prem Lal …… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2008 Under Sections 364, 201, 120-B/34 and 411 I.P.C. Police Station Joshimath District Chamoli Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State; and perused the record. After due consideraring of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties; contents of the F.I.R.; the allegations made against the present accused/applicant; the fact that the missing report dated 07/10/2008 given by Digha Khampa w/o Shringpal about the missing of Shringpal and Daya Nand Joshi has not been brought on record before me; the fact that inspite of my insistence to produce the said report, the Investigating Officer who is present today before the Court could not demonstrate me the contents of that report filed by Digha Khampa; the fact that the present report was recorded on 21/07/2008 at about 11:00 p.m. & consequently the accused has been show to be arrested on 27/07/2008; the fact that the applicant has given an application to the S.S.P. that his son (present applicant) has been detained in the police station Karnparayag not in Joshimath where the investigation was going on; the fact enumerated in para 6 of the counter affidavit admits that an application was submitted to the Superintendent of Police; Chamoli & in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that Suprintendent of Police, Chamoli directed the police of Police Station Joshimath to submit its report vide its order dated 19/08/2008; the fact that no F.I.R. of the present incident has been lodged till 21/07/2008; the fact that the I.O. could not demonstrate that any report was called from the Police Station Karnprayag about the arrest of the present applicant on 12/07/2008; the fact that the arrest of the Present applicant was made prior to the F.I.R.; the fact as stated by State that cap was discovered at the instance of the applicant; the fact that memo of discovery did not relate as a discovery & it was not at the pointing out of the accused/applicant & it was merely a recovery; the fact that the time of the recovery of the aforesaid article has not been shown in the fard; the fact that the applicant was arrested on the same date; the fact that the presence of the complainant also becomes doubtful as G.D. No. 27 lodged in the police station at 22:45 hrs. did not disclose the presence of the complainant; the fact that there is no departure in the G.D. from the police station to the discovery of the article; the fact that the Investigating Officer or the Addl. G.A. could not demonstrate as to how the present complainant was called, taken for identification for the article which was to be recovered and the place from where the body was thrown; the fact the only evidence remains against the accused/applicant is of the last seen witness Harish Chandra; and the fact that the chain of circumstance is not complete, I deem it fit and proper to release the accused/applicant on bail. Let the applicant-accused be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 01.12.2008 V.K.