IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 23rd day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 342 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Kuldeep @ Minta .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 472/2009, U/s 302 IPC, PS Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. _______________________________________________________________ March 23, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. SPS Panwar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. HC Pathak, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Heard. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He further submitted that the incident allegedly took place in the intervening night of 25/26.10.2009 and the report of this incident could be lodged on 26.10.2009 at 1.20 pm with ROP Landhora, Roorkee. He further submitted that the applicant was present at the time of preparation of inquest report and fard after the death of the deceased Arun Kumar. He also signed on the three fards and was very much present in the proceedings after the death of deceased Arun Kumar. He further submitted that the applicant moved an application on 1.2.2010 before the CJM, Haridwar for his surrender if wanted in any case and also asked that a report in this regard be sought from the PS Manglore. But the Inspector-in-Charge of the PS Manglore vide his report dated 4.2.2010 informed the CJM, Haridwar that the applicant was not wanted in Case Crime No. 472/2009 under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter the applicant came to know that police wants to arrest him in connection with this crime and, therefore, he surrendered and was taken into police remand and during the remand, country-made pistol (CMP) used in the commission of crime was said to be recovered on the pointing out of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant further argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence against the applicant is not complete to connect him with the said crime. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Kuldeep @ Minta be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.3.2010 PRABODH 2