JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.401 of 2021, Sessions Trial No.1 of 2022, State Vs. Tanjil and Others, under Sections 201, 302, 392, 34, 411 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The deceased was a driver in the Dev Bhoomi Cab. On a booking, he took the car at 6:30 PM on 27.06.2021 to pick up the caller/passengers. On the same day, at midnight, at 2:00, the passengers sent a photograph of the deceased with the remark that the driver is asleep. Thereafter, the phones of the passengers as well as the deceased were switched off after 2:30 AM on 28.06.2021. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no eye-witness; the applicant is in custody for more than 3 years. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who, along with co-accused, booked the cab driven by the deceased. They killed the deceased and looted the car, which was recovered from them on 02.07.2021. The mobile phone, by which the cab was booked, was also recovered from the applicant. 6. It is also argued that, in fact, the factum of applicant using the car with the deceased is further confirmed by the entry register maintained by police at the borders at Dharampur Barrier, in which the entry of the deceased as well as the applicant and co-accused, as passengers, is made. Copy of this register has been filed along with the counter affidavit of the informant. 7. Learned counsel for the informant adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned State Counsel. 8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 9. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has shown that the applicant called the deceased from the mobile phone, which was subsequently recovered from him. The applicant and the co-accused took the deceased in the car. 9. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has shown that the applicant called the deceased from the mobile phone, which was subsequently recovered from him. The applicant and the co-accused took the deceased in the car. Their presence in the car is noted in the entry of the police register maintained at the border, which records that the applicant was also one of the passengers in the car. As per prosecution, the looted car was also recovered from them. 10. Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The bail application is rejected.