IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Second Bail Application No.48 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Brijpal S/o Bhasso Singh Saini R/o Khanpur PS Nagina, Distt. Bijnore, UP ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.156 of 2009, U/s 395/397/412 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Laksar, Distt.Haridwar Dated: May 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application. The first one was dismissed as not pressed on 30.3.2010. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that at 1 AM in the night of 28.6.09, 10-11 dacoits committed dacoity, who were armed with Tamancha, DANDA and iron rods and their faces were covered with cloth, entered into the stone crusher of the complainant and looted cash of Rs.10,000/- as well as the Nokia mobiles of the persons employed there. It was further averted that in the same night, dacoity was also committed at Swatantra Stone Crusher and Shiva Stone Crusher. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA argued that on the same day, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Rakesh and Sanjay Saini and from the possession of the present applicant, Rs.12,000/- in cash and a NOKIA mobile was recovered. The said mobiles were also identified by the witnesses Karam Singh and Raja Ram, who were present at the same time and at the same crusher of the said dacoity. The applicant-accused has also got criminal history, which is as follows: - A. Case Crime No.8/09 us/ 457/380 IPC, PS Buggawala, District Haridwar B. Case Crime No.213/09 u/s 2/3 of UP Girohband & Samaj Virodhi Kriyakalap Act, 1986, PS Laksar, Haridwar He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses Karam Singh and Raja Ram were also been recorded by the IO (annexed as CA1 to the counter affidavit filed along with the first bail application), who too have fully supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that the applicant and the co-accused committed the dacoity on the same day at three stone crushers, i.e. the present stone crusher of the complainant as well as that of Swatantra Stone Crusher and Shiva Stone Crusher. 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 and also considering the gravity of the offence as well as the fact that the applicant was arrested on the same day and the recovery was also made from him as well as the criminal history of the applicant, 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. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.05.2010 Rajeev Dang