HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.324 of 2024 Ajam Malik ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 171 of 2023, under Section 302, 149, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected on merits on 08.08.2024. 4. According to the FIR, on 30.04.2023, in the morning, the applicant came into the house of the deceased and took alongwith him under the pretext of resolving some dispute. After 25 minutes, the brother of the deceased came to know that the deceased has been killed. FIR records that the deceased and his family had enmity with the named accused in the FIR. A suspicion was raised that those named persons, who are co-accused have killed the deceased. 2 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the first bail rejection order was obtained on misrepresentation. The applicant had no enmity with the deceased as per the FIR and the persons against whom according to the FIR, the deceased had enmity, they were arrested; the only evidence against the applicant was last seen. But, it is argued that it may not be the basis for conviction. The applicant is in custody for more than 30 months now. He cannot be kept behind bars without trial. He is not a convict. Mere on checking, a firearm was allegedly recovered, but there is no disclosure statement. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that in the first bail rejection order, in para 5, the State has given a misleading statement that a bullet which has been detected from the dead body, has been fired through the country-made pistol recovered at the behest of the applicant. It is argued that nothing was recovered at the behest of the applicant. It is a misrepresentation which tantamount to fraud. Hence, it is a case fit for bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that it is not the only last seen evidence, which is against the applicant. She submits that insofar as, the last seen is concerned, it is the applicant, who telephonically called the deceased early hours at 5:00 A.M. on the date of incident, which is established by the call details record. Thereafter, the deceased came out from his house and approached a vehicle, which was being driven by the applicant. It is captured in the CCTV footages, which have been proved by the uncle Sri Ramesh and aunt Smt. Pushpa Devi of the deceased. The vehicle has further been spotted at the petrol pump and when the applicant was arrested, from his pocket, a country-made pistol was recovered and forensic 3 report confirms that the bullet that was detected from the dead body was fired through from that pistol. 7. It is true that when the first bail application was rejected, on behalf of the State, it was not correctly told to the Court that the country-made pistol was recovered at the behest of the applicant because according to the prosecution case, it was recovered from the applicant himself and it was a sudden search. There are multiple evidence against the applicant. 8. Having considered, this Court does not see any new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 14.08.2025 Jitendra