State of Uttarakhand vs P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.685 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sachin S/o Bhagwat Prasad R/o Lower Nathanpur, P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2010 Under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. As per the prosecution story, complainant Mahendra Singh Yadav’s daughter was married to the applicant-accused Sachin on 5.10.2009. After one month of the marriage, the applicant-accused and his family members started harassing the deceased for dowry. The deceased had told her parents that the applicant-accused is demanding a motorcyle and Rs.40,000/- cash otherwise she will be killed. On the persuasion of her parents, the deceased was sent back to her in-laws’ house. On 11.6.2010 at about 9:30 AM, when her mother went to see her daughter, she found her hanging. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant-accused and his parents have committed murder of deceased Smt. Sushma for the demand of dowry. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that it is a case of dowry death and there are specific allegations against the present applicant-accused. He further submitted that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to the demand of dowry and soon before her death, she was being harassed by the present applicant for the demand of dowry. He has further submitted that the applicant, being the husband, is bound to prove as to how the deceased Smt. Sushma has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. After considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of the applicant-accused and that she was being harassed by the applicant due to demand of dowry soon before her death, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.838 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Vikaram Singh S/o Kishan Singh R/o Pirtikot Patwari Kshetra Deghat, District Almora State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2010 Under Sections 323, 494, 498A, 427, 307 of IPC Registered at Patwari Kshetra Challani Nayab, Tehsildar Bhikiyasen, District Almora ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution story is that marriage of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi was solemnized with the applicant- accused 25-30 years back and later on accused solemnized second marriage 8-9 years back. Injured Nirmala Devi opposed the second marriage of applicant-accused and on that account the applicant wants to thrown her from house and maltreated her on one way and other. In the marriage of her elder daughter, applicant-accused contributed nothing. On 25.5.2010, Jagat Singh, brother of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, got a telephone call from her niece (daughter of injured) that the applicant-accused has thrown all the belongings of Smt. Nirmala Devi from the house and he also wants to turn out Smt. Nirmala Devi from her house. When Smt. Nirmala Devi resisted this act of the applicant-accused, he by means of Chapar, a weapon used to cut meat, inflicted a number of blows on her due to which she received serious injuries. Due to fear of the applicant-accused, son and daughter of Smt. Nirmala Devi are not taking her to hospital. Even the other people of village are not helping her due to his fear. On this information, complainant came from Haridwar on 26.5.2010 and saw the condition of his sister, who was drenched with blood. He admitted her in Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance 108. Injured was medically examined at C.H.C. Bhikiyasen on

26.5.2010 at about 9 PM and a number of injuries were found on her person which were caused by Chapar. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State vehemently argued that as many as eight injuries were found on the person of Smt. Nirmala Devi which are on vital part and dangerous to life. Thus, the contents of the FIR get full corroboration from the medical evidence. A perusal of the First Information Report and the medical report of the injured and the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie indicates that the injuries were caused to Smt. Nirmala Devi by the applicant-accused with intention to kill her and even her children and the villagers did not find the courage to take her to hospital due to fear of the applicant-accused and when the brother of the injured came to her house then she was taken to Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance

108. Further, eight injuries have been received by the injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, out of which six are on the head i.e. vital part. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IInd Bail Application No.120 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rashid S/o Rafeeq R/o Line No.16, Azad Nagar, Haldwani, District Nainital State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.12 of 2010 Under Sections 302, 394, 201, 411 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.4.2010 and that was not dismissed on merit. Heard Mr. Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the said crime. It is further submitted that the only evidence against the applicant is the confessional statement of co-accused Javed recorded in the police custody, which is not admissible as per law. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sakir and Faizal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.6.2010 and 8.9.2010, respectively, and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Rashid be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Nainital. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.842 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mohammad Shah S/o Akhtar Shah R/o Baghauri, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.49 of 2010 Under Section 302 of IPC, P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the said crime. Learned Addl. GA for the State has also submitted that no other evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicant except that of last seen evidence. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Mohammad Shah be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.841 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Viney Kumar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar R/o Village Society Road Laksar, P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2010 Under Sections 302, 201 of IPC P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the prosecution case the deceased Sushma Rani died in the night of 4/5.4.2010 and the FIR of the said incident was lodged on 5.4.2010 at 02:30 AM by the applicant-accused Vinay Kumar himself. It is further submitted that on

11.7.2010 and 12.7.2010 i.e. after about more than three months of the said incident, statements of Kharak Singh, Tej Singh, Deepak Verma, Vivek Verma and Smt. Pratibha were recorded and in their statements all these witnesses have stated that the applicant-accused has confessed his guilt about the said crime in the police station on 5.4.2010, which creates a reasonable doubt on the conduct of these witnesses that why they did not disclose the same fact on the same day in the police station and remained silent for about three months. It is further argued that except the statement of above-named persons, no other evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicant-accused. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR; statement of above-named persons and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Viney Kumar be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.825 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Naveen Chandra Arya S/o Yagya Dutt Arya R/o Parvati Palace, Shakti Vihar, Near Old ITI, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of CBI Case No.7/2010 U/Ss 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988 CBI, SPE Dehradun ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Arvind Vashitha, Standing Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and the I.O. has not collected any credible evidence against him, during investigation. Contrary to this, learned standing counsel for the respondent has stated that during investigation, it has come in the evidence that the applicant- accused N.C. Arya, the then Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Haldwani abused his official position as public servant, entered into criminal conspiracy with the private persons and cheated the Bank of Baroda for an amount of Rs.1,12,70,000/- approx. by sanctioning and disbursing loans on the basis of fake and forged documents as mentioned in the chargesheets filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun on 25.6.2010 and all these persons including valuer of the properties Sri Sanjeev Kumar Verma have also been chargesheeted. It is submitted that all the loans were sanctioned by the applicant- accused without adhering to the bank guidelines. The documents relating to assets or business being carried out by the borrowers or the guarantors of loans namely copies of ownership of asset, business, balance-sheet, profit and loss statement, bank statement etc. were not taken on record before the disbursement of loan by the applicant-accused, thereby violating the mandatory guideline of the Bank for consideration and sanction of home loan. The applicant- accused did not properly conduct the mandatory pre and post physical inspection of the properties. It is also submitted that the persons who are instrumental in submission of fake sale deed showing them as genuine sale deeds have also been charge-sheeted along with the applicant-accused. It is further submitted that the person who were instrumental in opening of account in the fictitious names through which the defrauded amount was withdrawn have also been charge- sheeted along with the applicant-accused. A perusal of the First Information Report and the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie indicates that the applicant-accused N.C. Arya, in the capacity of public servant, posted as Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Haldwani, abused his official position as public servant, entered into criminal conspiracy with the private persons and cheated the Bank of Baroda for an amount of Rs.1,12,70,000/- approx. by sanctioning and disbursing loans on the basis of fake and forged documents. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.824 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE

1. Basant Kumar S/o Chaman Lal 2. Jaibeer S/o Sukhbeer Both R/o Dhanpura, P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicants (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.8/29/2010 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 506 of IPC P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the complainant. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 22.2.2010 at 5:30 PM, Pawan Kumar lodged a First Information Report at Reporting Outpost Pherupur, District Haridwar against the applicants and seven other co-accused with the allegations that in the morning of 22.2.2010 at about 7 AM, the applicants along with co-accused caused injuries to Prithvi Singh and when Kishan Singh, Pawan Kumar, Atri Devi, Mange Ram, Monu came for his rescue, the accused persons also caused injuries to the above-named persons. Due to the injuries received in the said incident, Prithvi Singh died. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is a cross version also in which the FIR was got lodged by Smt. Mirta W/o Sukhveer against the accused Prithvi, Kishan, Bishan, Pawan, Sonu, Ashok and Sonu S/o Bishan alleging that they have caused injuries to accused side. He further submitted that these are the cross cases and the injuries are on both the parties i.e. on the side of complainant and accused persons and at this stage it cannot be ascertained that which of the party is the aggressor. It is further submitted that all the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the police has submitted final report in respect of the FIR lodged by the accused side. In this regard, Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that till date the applicants has not received any notices from the court concerned with regard to submission of the final report and the investigation is still going on. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of both the FIRs; injury reports and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants Basant Kumar and Jaibeer be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.736 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Tejpal S/o Ganga Ram R/o Village Ajitpur, Police Station Kichha, District U.S. Nagar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.65/2010 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 324 of IPC P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on

29.3.2010 at 7:10 PM, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant Tej Pal and co-accused Jamuna Prasad, Bhup Ram and Hori Lal with the allegations that they have caused injuries to Khirendra, Karanpal and Kanta Prasad with knife. This FIR was registered at P.S. Devarniya but as the matter was related to P.S. Kichcha, therefore, it was transferred to P.S. Kiccha and registered as FIR No.65 of 2010 under Sections 147/148/149/308/324/323 of IPC. He further submitted that there is a cross version also in which the FIR was lodged by Jamuna Prasad at Police Station Kichcha on 30.3.2010 at 9:10 AM against Karan Pal, Khilendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad with the allegations that on 29.3.2010 Karanpal, Khirendra, Virendra and Kanta Prasad caused injuries to Prempal, Pintu and Bhupal. He further submitted that these are the cross cases and the injuries are on both the parties i.e. on the side of complainant and accused persons and at this stage it cannot be ascertained that which of the party is the aggressor. It is further submitted that the co-accused Jamuna Prasad, Bhup Ram and Hori Lal have already been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of both the FIRs; injury reports and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Tej Pal be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.821 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Amit Bhardwaz S/o Satyanarayan Bhardwaz R/o Mohd. Aacharyan Chhoupta Near Lal Kaun, P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.67/2010 U/Ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA for the State and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature and no registered agreement to sell has been executed between the parties. He further submitted that, in the FIR, it is alleged that an unregistered agreement to sell was executed between the parties but the unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible as per law. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sameer alias Sonu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2010 and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Amit Bhardwaz be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.822 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE

1. Jagdish Haldar 2. Smt. Sunita Haldar @ Suchitra Haldar R/o Adarsh Indra Bangali Colony, Rudrapur, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicants (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.306 of 2010 U/Ss 498A, 304B of IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no.1 is father-in-law and applicant no.2 is mother- in-law of the victim Smt. Pramila Haldar and they are living separately from Smt. Pramila and her husband. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants and they are not at all beneficiary with the demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the co-accused Shambu Haldar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.7.2010 and the present applicants are also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. It is pleaded that the applicants are old persons, who are ailing with several old age diseases. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants Jagdish Haldar and Smt. Sunita Haldar be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.823 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE

3. Virendra Lal 4. Rakesh Lal State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicants (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 7, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2010 U/s 302 of IPC P.S. Barkot, District Uttarkashi ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are brothers-in-law of the deceased Smt. Rajni. He further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Further, they were living separately from the deceased and her husband and even they are not at all beneficiary with the demand of dowry. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants Virendra Lal and Rakesh Lal be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Uttarkashi. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.796 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Parvendra S/o Jaswant Singh R/o 33-G, Type II, Sector-2, BHEL, Ranipur, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.290 of 2010 Under Section 449 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State. In brief, the prosecution story is that on

31.7.2010/1.8.2010 at about 12 in the midnight, the applicant-accused Parvendra, who was posted as Artisan Grade IV in BHEL, reached in the residential house of Sri S.K. Das, General Manager, situated at House No.36, Type V, Sector-5B inside the BHEL Campus. On the same night at about 11 PM, earlier the applicant-accused gave abuses to S.K. Das on telephone, who tried to make him understand. But when the applicant-accused did not convince, he disconnected the phone. After 20-25 minutes at about 12 in the midnight, the applicant-accused jumped from the main gate and entered in his house and started knocking his door. On this, wife of Sri S.K. Das came on the door and asked him to come tomorrow as Sri S.K. Das was sleeping. But the applicant-accused did not listen her and started hurling abuses. Thereafter, Sri S.K. Das came and he also asked him to come tomorrow but the applicant-accused did not get convince and he threatened to kill him. The applicant- accused was having a pistol in his hand due to which Sri S.K. Das got afraid and he along with his wife went in the upper bedroom and closed the door. Thereupon, the applicant- accused reached in the upper bedroom and tried to break the door. Wife of Sri S.K. Das raised noise for their rescue from the window, at which, their neighbourers came out from their houses and they informed about the incident in the police control room. Thereafter, the police reached at the spot and arrested the applicant-accused along with pistol and taken him in the police station. With these averments, SHO Sri Vijay Kumar lodged a FIR at P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. It is also stated in the FIR, that on the night of incident, Sri S.K. Das and his family were in shock and when they recovered a bit from the same, they also got lodged a report of the same incident in the police station on 3.8.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the applicant had made complaints against S.K. Das regarding financial irregularities being committed by him due to which S.K. Das became annoyed and as a counter blast he got lodged the present FIR in collusion with the police against him. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA has argued that the on the date of incident in the midnight the applicant-accused was entered into the house of Sri S.K. Das, hurled abuses to him and also tried to kill him. On the information given by the people of the vicinity, the police reached and the applicant-accused was caught red-handed on the spot along with a pistol. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant-accused, on the night of incident, entered into the house of Sri S.K. Das and hurled filthy abuses to him and also tried to kill him and that he was armed with pistol, I am of the view no case for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.666 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Narendra Kumar S/o Rampal R/o Village Chandpur, P.S. Badgaon, District Saharanpur State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2009 Under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 and 212 of IPC, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he is not cited as a conspirator. He further submitted that no evidence has been collected by the I.O. to connect him with the said crime. Learned Addl. GA for the State submitted that the present applicant has criminal history of one case. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been released on bail in that case. He further submitted that all the co-accused of the present case has been granted bail by this Court and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Narendra Kumar be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.643 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Nazmul Huda S/o Late Moshin R/o Village Sonapur, P.S. Harish Chand, District Malda, West Bengal State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2010 Under Sections 489B, 489C and 489E IPC P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that only a recovery of counterfeit notes has been made from the applicant and the same offence comes u/s 489C IPC which is a bailable offence. It is pleaded that the applicant is in jail since 28.2.2010. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Nazmul Huda be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.815 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mukrram S/o Sharif R/o Village Telliwala Padli Gurjar P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.66 of 2010 Under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC P.S. Jhabreda, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that, as per the prosecution story, there is recovery of only six Pendol clips from the possession of the applicant. It is pleaded that the applicant is in jail since 8.7.2010 and has got no previous criminal history. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Mukrram be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.814 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ashish Nautiyal S/o Bhagwati Prasad Nautiyal R/o Village Bhigun, Vinkhal, Tehsil Ghansali District Tehri Garhwal State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.263 of 2010 Under Sections 306, 504 and 506 of IPC P.S. Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 12.4.2010, however, the FIR was lodged on 21.5.2010 and the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by giving a sufficient cause. He further argued that in the FIR there is no allegation of abatement against the applicant that he instigated or threatened the victim to commit suicide. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Ashish Nauityal be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Rudraprayag. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.818 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Nitai S/o Susheel R/o Nuriya School, P.S. Nuriya, District Pilibhit (UP) Permanent Address-Loki Kati, P.S. Dorakhpur, District Kholna Bangaldesh State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.263 of 2009 Under Sections 489B, 489C IPC, Section 3(1) Passport Entry to India Act and Section 14 Foreigners Act, P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. A.S. Gill and Mr. Milind Raj, Advocates for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of India and is residing in Village Sanjay Colony, P.S. Nuriya, District Pilibhit since last 40 years. In support of this fact, he has filed copy of ration card of the year 1995 and a certificate issued by Village Pradhan telling that the applicant is residing in aforestated address from last 43 years. He has also filed copy of marksheet of his son Dilip Adhikari of the year 2003-04 which also shows that the applicant is permanently residing in India with his family. It is further argued that only the recovery of counterfeit notes has been made from the possession of the applicant, which comes u/s 489C of IPC and which is a bailable offence. It is pleaded that the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2009 and has got no previous criminal history. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Nitai be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.787 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE

1. Afzal S/o Shamin Khan 2. Akram S/o Asif Ali State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: September 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.381/2010 Under Sections 332, 353, 427 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act Thana Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Counter affidavit filed by the State be taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations have been made against the applicant due to certain misunderstanding which was occurred between the parties. Further, the injuries sustained by the doctors are simple in nature. He further argued that on the basis of the contents of the FIR, offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST is not made out. It is pleaded that the applicant is in jail since 31.7.2010. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants Afzal and Akram be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 1.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.604 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Amit S/o Jogaraj R/o 83 Shyamnagar Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.64/2009 U/Ss 498-A, 323, 307, 504, 120B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. H.C. Pathak and Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. In brief, the prosecution case is that Madan Pal Singh lodged a First Information Report against the applicant and co-accused alleging that the marriage of his daughter Savita was solemnized with the applicant on 5.5.2003. In the marriage, he spent about Rs.3.00 Lacs cash and also gave sufficient dowry, however, in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with it and they started harassing her physically and mentally for dowry. It is further alleged that after birth of two female children, the in-laws of his daughter increased the torture upon his daughter and on 25.12.2006 for the non- fulfillment of their demand of dowry, the applicant-accused and co-accused beaten his daughter and, thereafter, with intention to kill her, they pushed her from the roof due to which her backbone was got fractured. When the complainant came to know about the said incident, he along with ex- pradhan Bhanvar, brother Sukhpal and Rajendra went to Roorkee, on which, the in-law of his daughter tendered apology for their mistakes and assured that they themselves will provide complete treatment to his daughter on their own expenses. For the sake of matrimonial life of his daughter, at that time, the complainant did not take any legal action against the accused persons but after three months, the applicant and co-accused ousted her from the house for the demand of Rs.2.50 Lacs and threatened her that the applicant will solemnize another marriage if their aforesaid demand would not be fulfilled. It is further alleged that on

11.12.2008 the applicant Amit illegally solemnized second marriage without any divorce from his daughter. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State as well as by the complainant along with which the statement of Smt. Savita recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. have been annexed, who has corroborated the contents of FIR in her statement. In counter affidavit, State has also annexed the medical report of Smt. Savita, which also shows the fracture in the backbone of Smt. Savita. Thus, the contents of FIR are also corroborated from the medical report. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances; statement of victim Smt. Savita recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; medical report of the victim; the fact that specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the commission of crime and that the victim was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of dowry by the applicant and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the applicant-accused pushed her from the roof of his house due to which her backbone was got fractured and she became handicapped, I am of the view that no case for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case preferably within a period of six months. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.801 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Julfikar @ Bhutto S/o Bashir R/o Village Bhaisani Ismailpur, P.S. Thanabhawan, District Saharanpur State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2010 Under Sections 328, 379, 411 of IPC P.S. G.R.P. Laksar, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned GA argued that Sheshpal, who was posted as Assistant S.I. at CISF Headquarters, Delhi went from his house to his duty having a mobile phone and Rs.40,000/- cash with him. On the way, the applicant and co-accused gave him some intoxicated article, due to which he became unconscious. Thereafter the applicant and co-accused looted his mobile phone and cash. When Sheshpal did not reach on his duty and also could not be traced out, then on 25.7.2010, a missing report was lodged. Mobile set of Sheshpal was put in Electronic Surveillance, then the applicant-accused was found talking on the same phone. Thereafter, when the applicant came to know that the police is trying to arrest him, then he got cancelled his bail in some another case and went to jail. The applicant was summoned in the case and, on the application of police, he was taken in custody remand and thereafter the same mobile set was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Learned GA for the State further argued that the I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the applicant-accused which shows his involvement in the alleged crime. Further, the applicant-accused is a hardened criminal and he has criminal history of following cases:- i) ii) Case Crime No.123/88 under Sections 452, 324, 336, 504 IPC Case Crime No.124/88 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC iii) Case Crime No.29/99 under Section 3 U.P. Goonda Act iv) Case Crime No.126/00 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. v) Case Crime No.36/2001 under Section 296A IPC vi) Case Crime No.37/2001 under Section 13 G. Act vii) Case Crime No.103/95 under Section 25 Arms Act viii) Case Crime No.414/2002 under Section 296A IPC Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and looking to criminal history of the applicant-accused, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.802 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sameer alias Sonu S/o Chatrapal R/o Village Missarpur, P.s. Khankhal, District Haridwar State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.67/2010 Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 147 IPC P.S. Khankhal, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature and no registered agreement to sell has been executed between the applicant and the complainant. He further submitted that, in the FIR, it is alleged that an unregistered agreement to sell was executed between the parties but the unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible as per law. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Sameer alias Sonu be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.654 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rakesh Singh S/o Virendra Singh R/o Village Budoli, Patti Sarjula, P.S. Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal State of Uttarakhand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.2986/2010 U/Ss 306, 497, 506 of IPC P.S. New Tehri, District Tehril Garhwal ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said incident was taken place on 26.4.2010, however, the FIR was lodged after ten days and the delay in lodging the FIR is not explained. He further argued that the deceased Smt. Reena Devi and the applicant were the consenting party. Further, the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to connect the applicant with the said crime. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Rakesh Singh be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Tehri Garhwal. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.803 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE

1. Netrapal S/o Palla 2. Punjab S/o Palla 3. Kala S/o Palla All R/o Village Ahiyapur, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar ..….Applicants (In Jail) State of Uttarakhand Versus …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 _________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.87 of 2009 U/Ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 of IPC P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ __ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is a cross-case between the parties and from the applicants’ side, FIR was also lodged by Satveer Singh on 4.12.2009 at 3:10 PM against Pahal Singh and Neetu, which was registered as Case Crime No.84/2009, under Section 307 of IPC, Case Crime No.85/2009 under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Pahal Singh and Case Crime No.86/2009 under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Neetu. Thereafter the present FIR was lodged by Smt. Suresho wife of Pahal Singh on the same day i.e. on 4.12.2009 at 6:50 PM. He further submitted that from the applicants’ side Netrapal has also received injuries in the said incident and at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor. He also submitted that the co- accused of this case, namely, Anwar and Budhau @ Kuldeep have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

8.7.2010 and 20.8.2010 and the present applicants are also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of both the FIRs, injury report and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this state. Let the applicants Netrapal, Punjab and Kala be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar. The bail application is allowed accordingly. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010