IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 14th October, 2008 Criminal Bail Application No. 821 of 2008 Order on the bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Jakir Hussain S/o Amir Hussain 2. Navi Hussain S/o Amri Hussain Both R/o Pathar Kui Gadarpur P.S. Gadarpur District U. S. Nagar …Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand …Opposite Party Arising out of F.I.R. No. 103/2008 Under Sections 147, 148, 307, 427 I.P.C. P.S. Gadarpur District U.S. Nagar __________________________________________________________ Hon’ble J.C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. I have gone through the documents alongwith the bail petition as well as the documents filed alongwith the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State could not demonstrate me the statement of Asfak Hussain from the case diary and the site plan of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the FIR discloses that the incident took place outside the house of the injured, whereas Javed Navi and Akbari Begum who claimed to be the injured and eye- witness of the incident respectively have stated that injured Javed went to the house of Dr. Ayub Khan where the doctor did not met him, but the wife of doctor met him. When the injured came out from the house the accused surrounded him and the incident took place. The FIR specifically discloses that applicant Jakir Hussain fired upon the injured and applicant Navi Hussain surrounded him at the spot alongwith the other co-accused; the prosecution could not demonstrate as to how this information was received to Asfak Hussain and his statement has not been annexed with the counter affidavit. The injured has stated that he could not se the assailant who caused firearm injury and the incised wound on his head. Likewise Akberi Begum who claims to be the eye witness of the incident has only stated that the accused persons surrounded him, whereas the present applicants were standing there and one of the accused fired upon the injured; the fire was shot on the leg of the injured; the prosecution could not demonstrate about the specific role assigned by the accused. Considering the submissions of the parties and perusal of the documents, I am of view that it is a fit case for bail. Let the applicants-accused be released on bail on executing a personal bond each and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that the observations made above shall not prejudice the trial court. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 14.10.2008 LSR