IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.35 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Smt. Shakuntala W/o Harish Chandra ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2008, U/Ss 307/504/506 IPC, P.S. Vikasnagar, Distt. Dehradun Dated: January 29, 2009 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 4.10.2008 at about 9:30 A.M., present applicant had caused injuries to Vidya Sagar with a sharp edged weapon i.e. Farsa due to which Vidya Sagar received injuries. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Sri B.P. Pokhariyal, Principal on 4.10.2008 at 11:15 A.M. at P.S. Vikasnagar, Distt. Dehradun. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in para 13 of his bail application, he has stated that injured is the member of Asha Ram Trust and on the date of incident, nearly 30-40 persons including the member of the trust and near about 2000 students with the help of J.V.C. Machine forcefully took possession over the land of the applicant and the aforesaid land is a Johard land. He further argued that the land in dispute in which the injured was forcibly trying to take possession was the land belonging to the applicant and due to this reason, the quarrel took place. In reply to para 13 of the bail application, the State has filed counter affidavit of Girish Chandra Sharma, S.I., who has not stated specifically that the land in question does not belong to the applicant. But the vague assertion has been made by the State by simply saying that the contents of para 13 of the affidavit of the application are not admitted and denied. Since the fact that the applicant is the owner of the land in dispute has not been denied specifically by the State, hence at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant is not the owner of the land in dispute. It was further argued on behalf of the applicant that the land in dispute belongs to the present applicant and he has a right of self-defence of her property. He further argued that in the FIR, it was stated that the injuries were caused to Vidya Sagar with a sharp edged weapon like Farsa but the State has filed counter affidavit along with which the statement of Vidya Sagar has been annexed recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement, Vidya Sagar has stated that the injuries were caused to him by Lathis and Dandas. Further the injured has stated that he could not see that with which weapon the injuries were caused to him. Hence, it was further stated on behalf of the applicant that the as the version of the FIR and the statement of injured are contradictory to each other, therefore, the prosecution story is doubtful. It was lastly argued that the applicant is a lady and she is sick and infirm also. After considering all the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let applicant Smt. Shakuntala be released on bail on her executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Dehradun. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) Vacation Judge 29.1.2009 Rajeev Dang