HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 11th May, 2009 1st Bail Application No. 382 of 2009 Order on the bail application of the accused. Arun Pal S/o Ved Pal …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party Case Crime No.142 of 2008 U/s 302, 394, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Ganghahar Roorkee District Haridwar Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the for the State; and perused the record. This is the 1st Bail Application moved by the accused/applicant. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that statement of eye- witness, Ajay Kumar has been recorded by the trial court during the pendency of this bail application. He has further stated that this witness has not supported the version of the F.I.R., as such, the applicant is entitled to get the bail. It would be just and proper to direct the applicant to move a fresh bail application before the learned trial court and the learned trial court would hear the bail application of the applicant afresh in the light of the evidence recorded by it and would decide the bail application in accordance with the law. The trial court would not be influenced by the fact that this bail application is being disposed of by this Court. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 11.05.2009 Shiv