IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital the 17th September, 2008 First Bail Application No. 381 of 2008 Order on the bail Application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Birbal S/o Sukkha R/o Rawali Mehdood P.S. Kotwali Ranipur District Haridwar ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Opposite Party AND Criminal Bail Application No. 378 of 2008 Manga S/o Phool Singh R/o Village Rawali Mehdood P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Opposite Party AND Criminal Bail Application No. 379 of 2008 Nanu S/o Satpal R/o Rawali Mehdood P.S. Kotwali Ranipur District Haridwar ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Opposite Party AND Criminal Bail Application No. 384 of 2008 Sanju S/o Kali Ram R/o Village Rawali Mehdood P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Opposite Party AND Criminal Bail Application No. 406 of 2008 Monu S/o Shoba R/o Village Rawali Mehdood P.S. Kotwali Ranipur District Haridwar ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Opposite Party Arising out of case crime No.60/2008 Under Section 304 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Ranipur District Haridwar Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants-Birbal & Nanu; Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the applicants-Manga & Sanju; Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant-Monu; Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the applicant-Nanu; and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that Alauddin, who was accompanying the deceased Dev Singh, ran away from the place of incident when the mob came there, but the deceased Dev Singh was caught hold by the villagers at the spot. The statement of Alauddin was recorded on 19.02.2008 in which he has not indicated the names of the present applicants- accused. He has only stated that he could recognize the assailants when they would be brought before him. Again, on 23.02.2008 his statement was recorded in which he has stated that when he visited village Rawli Mahadood he came to know the present applicants- accused had participated in the said incident due to which the deceased sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the evidence of Alauddin is not reliable at this state. It was further contended that the statement of Pramod Kumar with whom the main scuffle took place was recorded after one month of the incident. In the statement of Pramod Kumar, the names of the present applicants-accused were disclosed. It was further contended on behalf of the applicants that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the 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, is made clear that the observations made above shall not prejudice the trial court. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) Dated 17.09.2008 LSR