IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 21st day of August 2008. Bail Application No. 377 of 2007 Criminal Side Sukhwant Singh, S/o Shri Singhara Singh, R/o Pannu Farm, Village Bharatpur, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …Applicant Versus State of Uttarkhand ….Opposite Party. Arising out of Crime No. 4589 of 2006. Under Section: 302 of I.P.C., Police Station : Kashipur, District: Udham Singh Nagar. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. H.S. Phulka, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocte, and Sri Sukhdev Singh, Advocate, for the applicant, and Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State. Applicant Sukhwant Sinhg, who is in jail in connection with Crime No. 4589 of 2006, relating to offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. Learend counsel for the applicant pointed out that as per the site plan the shot was fired at the deceased from a distance of ten steps, while the postmortem examination report shows blackening and tattoing in the firearm injury suffered by the deceased. As such, the fire must have been shot point blank and not in the manner alleged by the Prosecution. It is further stated that there are more than 100 persons witnessing the cremation of one Jassa, where the incident had taken place, but only the relatives of the complainant supported the prosecution story and independent witnesses are not produced. It is further contended that the presence of the complainant on the spot is doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail for almost two years. On the other hand learned Brief Holder for the State pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at a concluding stage. It is further pointed out that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. Specific role h as been assigned to him along with co-accused. Deceased, applicant (accused) as well as complainant, all the three have criminal history. The incident is daylight one. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, in the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. pant, J.) Dt. 21.08.2008 NS