SHAKTI RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST bail applications of the accused applicants were dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 22.4.2010 passed by this Court. Hence, second bail applications have been moved on their behalf. Since both these bail applications pertain to the same incident, hence they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants argued that applicants are not named in the FIR and the case against them rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that chain of circumstances is not complete to connect the applicants with alleged crime. Learned Addl. GA for the State argued that on the pointing out of the applicants, kudal which was used in the said crime has been recovered. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that in the post mortem report no injury of kudal has been mentioned, which creates doubt about the prosecution story. He also submitted that coaccused Vinod Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2009 and the present applicants are also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. He also submitted that applicants have got no previous criminal history, who are in jail since last 14 months and the trial has not yet been completed. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR and other papers available on record and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commending upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that applicants deserve bail at this stage.