IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital : the 17th day of June, 2008 First Bail Application No. 435 of 2008 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Kale and another ……… Applicants / Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Respondent Arising out of Crime No. 2046 of 2007 Under Sections: 302/34 I.P.C. Police Station : Jaspur District : Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nandan Arya, Asstt. Government Advocate for the State. 2. It is a very peculiar case. As per the First Information Report lodged on 18.08.2007 by the husband of the deceased, three persons, namely, Gurmukh Singh, Mangat Singh and Manga Singh were specifically named as accused. In this First Information Report by naming these three persons, complainant Pahalwan Singh, the husband of the deceased, categorically stated that they had come to the house to kill the wife of the complainant and that Gurmukh Singh accused fired fatal shot from the pistol. In this First Information Report, Dharmendra Singh – the son of the deceased and the complainant – was cited as eye witness. Lateron, the complainant Pahalwan Singh turned topsy turvy and in the statement recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C., he gave an entirely new twist to the whole episode by implicating his own son Dharmendra Singh, his own brother Tahal Singh, etc.etc. A brand new story was put forth in the said statement, this time, totally omitting and conveniently excluding the aforesaid three persons, namely, Gurmukh Singh, Mangat Singh and Manga Singh from the episode altogether. 2 3. There is something more interesting to this unsavory episode. In para ‘8’ of the affidavit accompanying the bail application, the petitioners have specifically mentioned that one statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr. P. C was recorded on the same date as the F.I.R. was lodged. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, this fact has not been disputed, even though the respondent has not tried to explain the incongruity as well as inconsistency between the two statements of the complainant, both recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., one sticking to his version as recorded in the F.I.R. and record containing his changed version. 4. Be that as it may, as per the latest version of the prosecution, Dharmendra Singh fired the fatal shot and killed his mother. Dharmendra Singh and others have been bailed out by this Court. 5. In the facts and circumstances as above mentioned, I am quite convinced that this is a fit case where the petitioners should be released on bail. 6. The bail application is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their executing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Kashipur. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 17.06.2008 A