IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 28th day of January 2009 Ist Bail Application No.61 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Lokesh S/o Mubarik Singh R/o Village Mohammadpur Jat P.S. Manglaur, District-Haridwar ….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: January 28, 2009 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.183/2008 Under Sections 302, 394, 201 IPC P.S. Kotwali Manglaur District-Haridwar ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 29.05.2008 at 1:00 P:M the co-accused Arvind Libberhedi shot fired at Harish Tyagi on the exhortation of the unknown person. Later on Harish Tyagi died. With the same averments, the F.I.R. was lodged by Sachin Tyagi at Police Station Manglaur on 29.05.2008 at 4:10 P:M. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has come during the investigation on the statement of the co- accused Arvind Libberhedi recorded in the police custody. He further submitted that the only evidence against the present applicant is the confessional statement of the co-accused Arvind Libberhedi recorded in the police custody, which is not admissible as per the law. He further submitted that the only role of the applicant in the above-said crime is of the exhortation and no allegation has been made directly against the present applicant and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He further submitted that in the present crime the specific role of the fire shot is assigned to Arvind Libberhedi and he is the main accused in the above-said crime. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that even in the contents of the F.I.R. no intention and motive of the applicant was shown. He further submitted that the present applicant is in jail since last seven months and the trial of the case has yet not been started. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 the applicant-Lokesh be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Haridwar. (Dharam Veer, J.) Vacation Judge 28.01.2009 RG