IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE (1) Bail Application No. 339 of 2010 1. Nischaya Sah (Nikki) 2. Vineet Sah (Bijju) ……Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No. 910 of 2009 Under Section 302 of IPC P.S. Bageshwar, District Bageshwar (2) Bail Application No. 352 of 2010 Anil Kumar ……Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No. 910 of 2009 Under Section 302 and 201 of IPC P.S. Bageshwar, District Bageshwar Dated: April 8, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. In both the bail applications, the applicants are related to the common incident and the matter to be decided in both the applications is also same, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicants Nischaya Sah (Nikki) and Vineet Sah (Bijju) and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant Anil Kumar as well as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record. Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that she does not want to press the bail application of applicant/accused Nischaya Sah (Nikki) and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the above statement, the bail application of Nischaya Sah (Nikki) is dismissed as not pressed. Now for rest of the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants/accused Vineet Sah (Bijju) and Anil Kumar are not named in the F.I.R. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete against the above-named applicants so as to show their involvement in the said crime. Contrary to this, learned Additional Government Advocate argued that during investigation, the statement of Sohan Singh has been recorded by the I.O. and as per his statement role of catching hold was assigned to the applicants/accused Vineet Sah (Bijju) and Anil Kumar at the time of incident Learned counsel for the applicants/accused further submitted that the applicants/accused have got no previous criminal history. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants Vineet Sah (Bijju) and Anil Kumar deserve bail at this stage. Let the applicants- Vineet Sah (Bijju) and Anil Kumar be released on bail on executing a personal bond by each one of them and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Bageshwar. Both the bail applications stand disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 08.04.2010 RG