2025:UHC:8855 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/959/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, AGA for the State. 2. Having been arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 37 of 2014, registered in Police Station, Patelnagar, District Dehradun for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC, present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused applicant. 3. An FIR was lodged by Smt. Rani @ Sudesh, wife of the deceased Dharampal, alleging that on 12.02.2014, at about 7:45 a.m., while she was having tea with her husband at their residence, the doorbell rang. Upon her husband opening the door, two unidentified boys aged approximately 22 to 25 years, entered the house. After making an inquiry about Dharampal, one of them opened fire, causing gunshot injury on the chest of Dharampal. As a result of the firearm injury, Dharampal fell on the ground and was immediately taken to Indiresh Hospital, where he was declared “brought dead” by the attending doctors. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is no material to implicate the applicant; applicant was arrested after one month of the incident; no ‘Test Identification Parade’ (TIP) was 2025:UHC:8855 conducted and the applicant is in jail since 19.03.2014. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that there are two eyewitnesses of the incident, namely, Rani @ Sudesh (PW1) and Nishant (PW3), who have identified the applicant in Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in all, 40 prosecution witnesses are to be examined however only 14 witnesses could be examined so far. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that applicant and co-accused (Sudhir) are contract killers, who were hired by Imran, a rival in the real estate business of deceased. Imran allegedly paid Rs. 7.00 lakh for killing Dharampal. 8. Learned State Counsel further contended that all the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined so far, have supported the prosecution case. He further submits that applicant has chequered criminal history, inasmuch as there are 14 criminal cases registered against him in different police stations within State of Uttarakhand, which include cases of murder, theft, dacoity and also the cases under Gangsters Act. Thus he contends that applicant is a threat to the society and if enlarged on bail, he will again indulge in criminal activities. He also contended that as per eyewitness account, it was the applicant who opened fire on Dharampal. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances 2025:UHC:8855 of the case and evidence adduced before the trial Court so far and also considering the long criminal history of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 10. Bail Application is, accordingly, rejected. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the same shall not influence the trial in any manner. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.10.2025 Mahinder/ MAHIND ER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6c a168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5 CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D 2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.10.08 18:55:42 +05'30'