Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) IN both these applications, prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicants Bharat Singh s/o Charan Singh and Rakesh s/o Ram Kumar, who are facing trial in S.T. No. 399 of 2008 arising out of case crime no. 793 of 2008, under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Mandi Dhanora, District J.P. Nagar. Since both the bail applications pertain to the same case, hence for the sake of convenience, these applications are being disposed of by this common order. Papers are being referred in this order from the record of Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 30301 of 2008.
(2.) THE complainant Banwari Singh s/o Sita Ram Saini, r/o village Pathar Kuti, P.S. Dhanora (J.P. Nagar), filed a written report on 07.06.2008 at P.S. Mandi Dhanora, in which it was alleged that his son Parveen, aged about 18 years, had gone on 28.05.2008 with Lokendra s/o Bharat Singh to Dhanora. In the way Bharat s/o Charan Singh also met them. On the same day Bharat informed that Parveen has given his mobile to him. Next day, Smt. Jaswanti Devi, wife of the complainant, brought the mobile from Bharat. When the son of the complainant did not come back, search for him was made, but in vain. On the basis of this information, gumsudagi report was lodged at P.S. Dhanora Mandi on 07.06.2008 in GD No. 39 at 5.10 p.m. Further case of prosecution is that murder of Parveen was committed by the accused Lokendra, Bharat, Pappu and Rakesh and his dead body was thrown in the jungle behind Chandi Devi Mandir, Haridwar, from where the bones of the dead body and wearing clothes of deceased were recovered on 10.06.2008 on the pointing out of the applicants Rakesh, Bharat and co-accused Lokendra. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Rupak Chaubey, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, Sri V.P. Mishra Advocate representing the complainant and AGA for the State. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no legal evidence against the applicants and they have been falsely roped in this case by showing false recovery of bones on their pointing out from the jungle behind Chandi Devi Mandir, Haridwar. It was also submitted in this context by learned counsel that there is no evidence to show that the recovered bones are of the dead body of the deceased.
(3.) IT was further submitted by learned counsel that the deceased Parveen was not carried by the applicants from his house and false story of carrying the deceased by the applicants has been concocted. Regarding the statement of the witnesses about carrying the deceased by all the four accused persons, it was submitted by learned counsel that if the deceased was carried by all the four accused persons from his house as stated by the witnesses, then this fact ought to have been mentioned in the gumsudagi report, whereas in gumsudagi report, it is only averred that the deceased Parveen had gone from his house with Lokendra and in the rasta, Bharat is said to have met them.;