IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 26th April, 2011 Order on the bail application of accused IIIrd Bail Application No.33 of 2010 CRIMINAL SIDE Sanjay Mahrotra S/o Rameshwar Nath Mahorotra … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2009 Under Sections 307, 504 IPC P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prem Kaushal and Mrs. Indu Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State. This is the third bail application. The first bail application was rejected on merit vide order dated 18.06.2009. The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2010. Third bail application has now been moved. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the gunshot injury on the chest of the victim were simple in nature and that the forensic report indicates that the gun which is alleged to have been recovered from the applicant could not be used in the crime since the size of the bullet recovered from the body of the victim was of a different size and consequently submitted that it is quite clear that the applicant has been victimized on account of previous enmity with the victim. In the light of the aforesaid, without commenting anything further on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, this court is of the opinion that even though the evidence is now over and 19th May, 2011 has been fixed for final hearing, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail in connection with Case Crime No.50/2009, under Sections 307 and 504 IPC, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and further with the condition that no adjournment would be sought at his behest before the trial court and that the trial court will proceed and decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 26.04.2011 LSR