IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (1) Criminal Second Bail Application No.52 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Dharmendra S/o Nathu Singh R/o Village Jalalpur, PS & District Bijnor, UP ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.2725/2009, U/s 392/411 IPC, PS Kotdwar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal (2) Criminal Second Bail Application No.53 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Dharmendra S/o Nathu Singh R/o Village Jalalpur, PS & District Bijnor, UP ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.2765/2009, U/s 307 IPC, PS Kotdwar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal (3) Criminal Second Bail Application No.54 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Dharmendra S/o Nathu Singh R/o Village Jalalpur, PS & District Bijnor, UP ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.2768/2009, U/s 25/4 Arms Act, PS Kotdwar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal Dated: June 2, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. In these three applications, the applicant is one and the same and the matter to be decided in all the applications is also the same, hence they all are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahid, Adv. for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he was arrested by the police on 6.11.2009 and some ornaments were shown to be recovered from his possession, but the description of the ornaments, shown to be robbed, was not mentioned in the FIR which was lodged as Case Crime No.2725/2009 U/s 392/411 IPC. He further submitted that Case Crime No.2765/2009 U/s 307 IPC was made out by the police when the applicant was shown to be arrested and it is a no injury case. He further submitted that Case Crime No.2768/2009, U/s 25/4 Arms Act was also made out by the police at the time of arrest of the applicant showing recovery of a knife from his possession. Further, the applicant is in jail since 6.11.2009 and has got no previous criminal history and the trial has yet not been started. After considering all the facts and circumstances, perusing the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage in all these cases. Let the applicant Dharmendra 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., Pauri Garhwal. It is clarified that the personal bond as well as the sureties shall be furnished separately in all the three cases i.e. Case Crime No.2725/09, No.2765/09 and No.2768/09. All the bail applications are allowed accordingly. 02.06.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)