HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 6th May, 2011 1st Bail Application No. 1056 of 2010 Order on the bail application of the accused. Hari Singh S/o Lakkha Singh ……. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party In F.I.R. No. 166 of 2010 U/S 364, 506, 302, 201, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. Thana Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri B.S. Adhikari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State. The complainant’s son Nisan Singh was having some kind of matrimonial dispute with his wife Rajwant Kaur and left the house. It is alleged that Nisan Singh was having an affair with another woman and started living with this woman at Delhi. Smt. Rajwant Kaur, wife of Nisan Singh intimated his family members who went to Delhi and it is alleged that they have abducted Nisan Singh and, while bringing him back to the complainant’s house, it is alleged that he escaped. According to the complainant, his son did not escape from the clutches of the applicant and others but was murdered and dumped somewhere. The body has not as yet been found even though the incident is of August, 2010. The applicant is the father-in-law of the younger brother of Rajwant Kaur who is alleged to have accompanied his son-in-law and others in the abduction of Nisan Singh. On the basis of the last seen evidence, the applicant has been arrested and the police is alleged to have recovered the stained clothes from the possession of the applicant. The trial has now started and the complainant Kulwant Singh has deposed before the Court that the clothes alleged to have been recovered from the residence of the applicant is not that of his son. The witnesses Swaran Singh who is alleged to have seen the applicant 2 in the Bolero Car has also deposed before the trial court denying the fact that he has seen the applicant in the car alongwith the son of the complainant. In the light of the statement of these two witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant is more than 60 years of age and is behind bars for the past six months and, without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in F.I.R. No. 166 of 2010 U/S 364, 506, 302, 201, 120-B and 34 I.P.C., on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 06.05.2011 Shiv