IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 7th day of April, 2010 III Bail Application No. 01 of 2010 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Jaswant @ Jasvinder S/o Jaggar R/o Village Banusee, P.S. Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. ………… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ………… Opposite Party Arising out of Crime No. 325 of 2006 Under Sections: 395, 397, 223, 224, 225 of I.P.C. & 29 Police Act Police Station: Kotwali Roorkee District: Haridwar. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder present for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State today. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is third bail application moved on behalf of applicant Jaswant @ Jasvinder. The first bail application was rejected on 16.03.2007, on merits. The second bail application was rejected on 24.04.2008, on merits. The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No. 325 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under Section 395, 397, 223, 224, 225 of I.P.C., and 29 Police Act, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2 The case pertains to a daredevil act of freeing five undertrial prisoners by road holdup. Not only this, the arms of the police guards are said to have been looted in the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Sonu Halvai has been directed to be released on bail on 16th of April 2009, after the second bail application of the present application was rejected. In reply to this, learned counsel for the State submitted that said accused Sonu Halvai was not put to test identification parade during investigation, but the present applicant was identified in the test identification parade, as such, he cannot claim the parity with said accused. It is also submitted on behalf of the State that except P.W. 9, all other eyewitnesses are said to have supported the prosecution story. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. The third bail application is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 07.04.2010 H.Negi