IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 28th day of January, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 92 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ikrar Nada .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 407/2006, U/s 395, 412 IPC, PS Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. _______________________________________________________________ January 28, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the accused applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Heard. In brief, the prosecution case is that five unknown persons committed dacoity in the house of the complainant Dilshad Khan on 23.12.2006 at about 3.30 am in mohalla Mirdhman, Kasba Manglore, District Haridwar and looted certain ornaments, cash and a mobile phone. With these averments, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Dilshad Khan on 23.12.2006 at 4.50 am with PS Kotwali Manglore. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the items shown to be recovered from the possession of the accused applicant are not shown in the FIR. He further submitted that the accused applicant is in jail since 6.1.2008 and the trial is yet to begin. He also submitted that the accused applicant has got no criminal history against him before this case. He lastly submitted that co-accused Akram has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.2.2008 and the accused applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of the parity. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; 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 applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Ikrar Nada be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in like amount, to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) VACATION JUDGE 28.1.2010 PRABODH 2