Manga Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 8.12.2009 at about 8.30 pm when Naveen Jindal returned to his house from the shop on a motorcycle, then some unknown miscreants shot at him on the gate of his house and Naveen Jindal died on the spot. The miscreants had come on motorcycle. The dead body was lying in the hospital. With these averments, FIR was lodged in the same night i.e. on 9.12.2009 at 12.30 am by Pankaj Jindal, elder brother of the deceased.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated.

Opposing the bail application of the accused applicant, learned Addl. G.A. for the State argued that the Investigation Officer has collected sufficient credible evidence against the accused applicant. He further submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal of Uttar Pradesh and he is the right-hand man of Sunil Rathi, a notorious criminal of the country, who had demanded ransom from the complainant Pankaj Jindal and when the ransom was not paid by him, then Sunil Rathi hired some shooters, namely, Nafees, Praveen Balmiki and the accused applicant Manga Tyagi, who shot on Naveen Jindal under the impression that he was Pankaj Jindal. Naveen Jindal died on the spot.

It has also come in the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar that four witnesses have been examined in this case and they have identified the accused applicant before the trial court, which proves the involvement of the accused applicant in this crime and he is the main accused who fired on the deceased along with co-accused Nafees and Praveen Balmiki. Sessions Judge, Haridwar has also observed that evidence of this case is about to complete.

Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR, post mortem report, statements of the witnesses and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant and credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. to prove the involvement of accused applicant in the said crime. Applicant is the main accused and all the four witnesses examined before the trial court have identified the accused applicant and evidence of this case is about to complete. Hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.