Julfikar @ Bhutto vs State of Uttarakhand

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 G.A. 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) Case Crime No. 123/88 under Sections 452, 324, 336, 504 IPC

ii) Case Crime No. 124/88 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC

iii) Case Crime No. 29/99 u/s 3 U.P. Goonda Act

iv) Case Crime No. 126/00 u/s 110 Cr.P.C.

v) Case Crime No. 36/2001 u/s 296A IPC

vi) Case Crime No. 37/2001 u/s 13 G. Act

vii) Case Crime No. 103/95 u/s 25 Arms Act

viii) Case Crime No. 414/2002 u/s 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.