IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 24th day of December, 2009 Ist Bail Application No.1026 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Salim & Anr. .…. Applicants (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No 376 of 2008, U/s 304-B I.P.C PS Laksar, District Haridwar. _______________________________________________________________ December 24, 2009 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the accused applicants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Heard. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants stated that in the dying declaration of Sahnaz recorded by the SDM, she has stated that she was set on fire after pouring the kerosene oil on her body by her brother-in-laws (Jeth) Husain Ahmed and Noora. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that Noora and Salim are two different persons. In support of her submission, she has stated that in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, statement of Nar Singh recorded u/s 161 CrPC has been annexed, wherein Nar Singh has stated that Tamoor has five sons, viz, Hussain Ahmad, Noora @ Noor Ahmad, Shakeel, Salim and Mustkeem. Thus, from the statement of Nar Singh annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary counter affidavit, it reveals that Noor @ Noor Ahmad and Salim are two different individuals. No allegation has been made against Salim in the dying declaration of the deceased, but specific allegation has been made against Hussain that he after pouring the kerosene oil over Sahnaz, set her on fire. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; in view of the statement of the deceased recorded in the dying declaration; for the reasons discussed above; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and 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 accused applicant Hussain does not deserve bail at this stage, whereas accused applicant Salim deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Let the applicant Salim be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. Bail application is disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.12.2009 PRABODH 2