HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 14th October, 2008 Bail Application No. 819 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Laxman Singh S/o Govind Singh …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….… Opposite Party _____________________________________________________________ Case Crime No. 2 of 2008 U/s 302 I.P.C. Patti Bangarsyun, Tehsil Thalisain District Pauri Garhwal Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for respondent/State; and perused the record. I have gone through the documents filed by the applicant; counter affidavit filed by the State; and the document annexed with the counter affidavit. I have also gone through the statement of Dharmpal Singh which was recorded on 26/07/2008 after four days of the incident who is said to be the witness who had seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the hotel by the present applicant. The statement of Dharampal Singh recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also filed alongwith the counter affidavit and there is a recovery memo of his belongings which was prepared on 23/07/2008. The post mortem report reveals that the death occurred about 36 hrs. prior to the conducting of the post mortem on 24/07/2008 at about 9:00 a.m. I have also peruse the fard discovery of a khunkari. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that khunkari has been recovered at the behest of Sanjay and another co-accused and it was not recovered at the behest of the present applicant. The statement of Dharam Pal Singh who was running a hotel adjacent to the hotel of the applicant has stated that he had stayed for three days in his hotel. So, it is natural that his belongings would be in the hotel of the applicant. He further contended that the duration of the death has been shown 36 hrs. which comes to at about 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. on 22/07/2008. These restaurants are situated on the highways and they remain opened during the late hours of the night. If any such incident would have occurred, it could have been witnessed by Dharam Pal Singh. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that Dharam Pal Singh, at the first time, disclosed this fact on 25/07/2008 whereas the incident took place on 22/07/2008. Thus, non-disclosure of this fact till a long time also belies the statement of Dharam Pal Singh. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality; contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; and counter affidavit filed by the state, I find that it is a fit case for bail. Let the accused/applicant be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (J.S.C. Rawat, J.) Dated 14.10.2008 Shiv