JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

These two bail applications are the second bail applications for grant of regular bail to the applicants/accused persons, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.568 of 2017, registered with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The first bail applications of these two applicants have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court vide order dated 29.08.2020, passed in BA1 No.584 of 2018, “Vineet vs. State of Uttarakhand" and BA1 No.596 of 2020 “Praveen Dhama alias Dumpy Dhama vs. State of Uttarakhand" respectively.

2. Facts, to the limited extent, are that an FIR was lodged at 00.10 hrs. on 30.09.2017. According to the first information report, on 29.09.2017 at 08.00 p.m., when the informant Rakesh Kumar along with his brother Amendra Pal Singh alias Bittu (deceased) and his nephew Sanjeev Pal Singh was returning home on a scooty, the present applicants along with another co-accused stopped them and started firing. The informant, the deceased Amendra Pal Singh alias Bittu and Sanjeev Pal Singh tried to run away, but the applicants shot Amendra Pal Singh alias Bittu dead. The informant and Sanjeev Pal Singh had raised alarm, at which, the applicants ran away. The inquest proceedings and post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased were conducted and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against applicant Vineet and three co-accused persons. The charge-sheet was not filed against present applicant Praveen Dhama alias Dumpy Dhama. During the trial, on an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present applicant Praveen Dhama alias Dumpy Dhama was also summoned to face trial along with other co-accused persons.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant-Praveen Dhama alias Dumpy Dhama submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated in this matter, therefore, after investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated him; nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant; during the trial, the informant PW-1 Rakesh Kumar and PW-2 Sanjeev Pal Singh were examined; there are material contradictions in their testimonies; the applicant is in custody since 16.01.2020; two co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court.

5. Mr. Maneesh Bisht, the learned counsel for the applicant–Vineet submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; there are several contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Rakesh and PW-2 Sanjeev Pal Singh; there was no independent witness in the alleged recovery of the pistol and the applicant is in custody since 02.10.2017.

6. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Mr. Lalit Sharma, the learned counsel for the informant–Rakesh Kumar, opposed these bail applications and submitted that the present second bail applications are not maintainable, because, all these contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the applicants at the time of the arguments on the first bail applications.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court on 29.08.2020 passed the following order :

“4. On behalf of the applicant Vineet, learned counsel would argue as follows:

(i) According to the FIR, three persons fired at the deceased, but the postmortem report reveals only one fire arm injury.

(ii) One of the eyewitness, Praveen Tomar has not supported the prosecution case at trial.

(iii) Co-accused Arpit and Sanjay have already been granted bail.

(iv) The inquest report reflects that the inquest cannot be conducted at night due to want of light. It makes the FIR doubtful because in the absence of light, it is not clear as to how the applicants were identified by the informant.

(v) A