IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.1178 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Dr. Madan Lal Baathla ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.476/09 U/Ss 302 IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, Distt. U.S. Nagar Dated: December 17, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Bhandari & Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocates for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State as well as Sri H.C. Pandey and Sri A.D. Massey, Advocates for the complainant. Counter affidavits filed today in the Court on behalf of State as well as on behalf of complainant are taken on record. In brief the prosecution case is that there was some dispute of shop between the applicant and one Lucky S/o Darshan Singh due to which a Panchayat was held. On the date of incident i.e. on 31.8.2009 at about 10:00 PM, the complainant Jasvinder Singh along with Mahendra Singh and Nripal Singh came to the shop of applicant where on the exhortation of the applicant-accused, Gurvinder Singh fired upon Mahendra Singh as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Jasvinder Singh on 31.8.2009 at 10:45 PM at P.S. Kotwali Rudrapur, Distt. U.S. Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as has been averted in the FIR, the only role assigned to the applicant is of exhortation while the main role of causing firearm injuries to Mahendra Singh has been assigned to co-accused Gurvinder Singh. He further submitted that as against the applicant, no specific role has been assigned for causing injuries to deceased Mahendra Singh. Further, the applicant has no enmity with the deceased and whatever the incident had happened, that was due to sudden provocation. He further submitted that the disputed shop has already been vacated by the applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the said shop was vacated after the incident. Further the applicant is in jail since 14.9.2009 and the trial has yet not been completed. After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR and other material on record, 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-Dr. Madan Lal Baathla be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and also on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., U.S. Nagar. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.12.2009 Rajeev Dang