HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 14th October, 2008 Bail Application No. 710 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Taufeeq ….… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….… Opposite Party _____________________________________________________________ Case Crime No. 223 of 2008 U/s 498-A, 323, 504, 377 I.P.C. & ¾ D.P. Act. Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar Hon’ble J.C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for respondent/State; Mr. S.C. Tyagi, Advocate for the complainant; and perused the record. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the inquiry report did not disclose the size of abrasion; the place of the abrasion on the anus; and the supplementary report discloses that there were no spermatozoa either alive or dead in the pathological test. Thus, the commission of offence u/s377 I.P.C. committed during the course of incident does not make out. It was further contended that she said allegation has been made only to colour the prosecution case. I have gone through the entire record as well as counter affidavit filed by the State. After going through the entire documents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 the Magistrate concerned. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 14.10.2008 Shiv