IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 24th day of June, 2010 2nd Bail Application No. 66 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Hitesh Kumar Sharma .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party With 2nd Bail Application No. 67 of 2010 CRIMINAL SIDE Hitesh Kumar Sharma .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party 2nd Bail Application No. 68 of 2010 CRIMINAL SIDE Hitesh Kumar Sharma .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out Case Crime No. 2767/2009, u/s 25/4 of The Arms Act, Case Crime No. 2765/2009, u/s 307 IPC, Case Crime No. 2725/2009, u/s 392, 411 IPC, PS Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal June 24, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Since all these three bail applications pertain to the same accused appellant and are also co-related to each other, hence they are being decided by this common order. First bail applications of the applicant in the aforesaid three crimes were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.4.2010 passed by this Court. Hence, second bail application has been moved on his behalf. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the applicant was arrested by the police on the date of incident i.e. on 6.11.2009 and some ornaments 2 have been shown to be recovered from his possession, but the description of the ornaments, shown to be robbed, was not mentioned in the FIR which was lodged as Case Crime No. 2725/2009, u/s 392/411 IPC. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant further submitted that Case Crime No. 2765/2009, u/s 307 IPC was made out by the police when the applicant was shown to be arrested and it is a no injury case. He further submitted that Case Crime No. 2767/2009, u/s 25/4 of the Arms Act was also made out by the police at the time of arrest of the applicant showing recovery of a knife from his possession. He further submitted that applicant has got no previous criminal history, who is in jail since 6.11.2009 and the trial is yet to begin. He also submitted that co-accused Dharmendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.6.2010 and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR and other papers available on record and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commending upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage in all these three cases. Let the applicant Hitesh Kumar Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Pauri Garhwal. It is clarified that the personal bond as well as the sureties shall be furnished separately in all the three cases i.e. Case Crime No. 2725/2009, 2765/2009 and 2767/2009. All these bail applications are allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 3 24.6.2010 PRABODH