IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION NO.5347 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.526 OF 2010 Santosh Singh ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and three others ……… Respondents Dated: August 26, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 3, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. G.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:- “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.6.2010 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, so far it relates to an observation as quoted hereunder:- **vkJe ifjlj esa nkf[ky ugha gksxkA** From a perusal of the bail order dated 9.6.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, it transpires that the petitioner was granted bail with the conditions that during the investigation, the petitioner will not threatened the witnesses, cooperate with the investigation and will not enter in the premises of Ashram. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is complying all the conditions which 2 were imposed upon him while granting bail to him. He confined his prayer only upto the extent that the order of restraint of restricting the petitioner to enter into the premises no.266 where his family resides may be deleted from the bail order dated 9.6.2010. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the family of the petitioner is residing in premises no.266, which is his residential house and which is inside the Ashram, and till date no eviction order has been passed against him, I am of the view that the condition imposed upon the petitioner is against the fact and circumstances as well as against the principle of natural justice. At this juncture, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the petitioner may be directed to enter in his house by using Gaushala gate, which is the nearest path to his house. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Order of restraint of restricting the petitioner to enter into his premises is hereby cancelled. The petitioner is permitted to enter into his residential house i.e. Premises No.266 with the conditions that the petitioner will use Gaushala Gate for entry and will not interfere in the working of the Ashram. (Interim Relief Application No.5347 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly). However, it is made clear that this finding will not prejudice to the proceedings pending in the court. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.08.2010 RG