IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 3rd day of February 2009 Ist Bail Application No.95 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ahmad Ali S/o Ismail R/o Village Tejpur P.S. Jawan, District Aligarh ….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: February 03, 2009 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.466 of 2008 Under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri R.K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. G.A. for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that the theft of one truck bearing no. UA08B-9873 was committed on 7.11.2008 at about 5:00 A:M. With the same averments, Takroov Hassan lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar on 11.11.2008 at 08:30 A:M. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said truck was shown to be recovered by the police on 18.11.2008 and as per the recovery memo Shamim was driving the truck and the present applicant along with one another person were sitting in the truck. He further argued that as per the recovery memo, forged documents of the truck were prepared by Maroof @ Vakil. He further argued that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant in the recovery memo as well as in the FIR. Specific allegation of fabricating the forged documents is against Maruf @ Vakeel and at the time of recovery the truck was shown to be driven by co- accused Shamim. He further argued that the FIR was lodged on 11.11.2008 after four days of the said incident while the distance of the police station from the place where the theft was said to be committed is 1Km and there is no explanation regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR. He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 18.11.2008 and the applicant has got no criminal history before this case. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant-Ahmad Ali be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Hardwar. (Dharam Veer, J.) Vacation Judge 03.02.2009 RG