IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 15th day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 200 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Vikram Singh .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 31/2009, U/s 457, 380 & 411 IPC, Patwari Circle Dashola Badiyar, Tehsil Bhanoli, District Almora. _______________________________________________________________ March 15, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. R.C. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He further argued that the FIR was lodged on 28.12.2009 and the incident took place one month and 11 days’ prior to lodging the FIR and this delay in lodging the FIR could not be explained by the prosecution by showing the sufficient cause. He further argued that none of the stolen jewellery has been recovered from the possession of the accused applicant. Whatever jewellery has been shown to be recovered, has been recovered from the shop of Kundan Lal Verma, the goldsmith. He lastly submitted that the applicant has got no previous criminal history, who is in jail since 30.12.2009 and the trial of the case is yet to start. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Vikram Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in like amount, to the satisfaction of CJM, Almora. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.3.2010 PRABODH 2