IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.723 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Washid ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of FIR No.172 of 2009, U/s 302/201 IPC, P.S. Bazpur, Distt. US Nagar Dated: August 18, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 1/2.6.09, the applicant with the consent of co-accused Manjoor Ahmed committed the murder of Muzib Ahmed. It has been alleged in the FIR that the murder of deceased was committed because he was having illicit relations with Parveen (wife of co-accused Manzur Ahmad). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA submitted that during the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statements of witnesses, Nagina Begum (sister of deceased) and Sirajuddin (maternal uncle of deceased), who have stated that the deceased was also having land, house and other assets and the co-accused Manjur wanted to grab the said assets belonging to the deceased and for this reason in the night of 1/2.6.09, murder of Muzib Ahmad was committed. He further submitted that the present applicant had casued injuries on the forehead of deceased with Belan and co-accused Manjur caused injuries with the weapons Farsa and bricks. The post-mortem report also corroborates the said injuries. He further submitted that from the evidence collected by the IO and the statements of the witnesses Nagina and Sirajuddin recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the post-mortem report, it reveals that the deceased had died due to the head injury and it has also come in evidence that on the head, the injuries were caused by the present applicant and co-accused. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. August 18, 2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)