IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 8th of July, 2010 Bail Application No. 511 of 2010 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Anwar S/o Kharak Singh R/o Village Yahiyapur, P.S. Khanpur, Distt. Haridwar. …………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …………. Opposite Party Arising out of Crime / FIR No. 87 of 2009 Under Sections: 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 of I.P.C. Police Station: Khanpur District: Haridwar. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the respondent State. Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate, present for the complainant. Applicant Anwar, who is in jail in connection with crime / FIR No. 87 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 of I.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there are two cross first information reports of the incident, and injuries on both the sides. It is further submitted that the deceased was armed with a country made pistol, and from the cross first information report it is apparent that said offence was registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, against Pahal Singh (deceased) and one Rajeev @ Neetu. It is stated on behalf of the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to him. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was a property dispute between the parties, and the civil court has granted an interim stay order in favour of the complainant side. It is alleged on behalf of the complainant that the accused were the aggressor. In reply to this, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not party in the civil suit. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, considering the injuries on both the sides, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Anwar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (Urgency Application No. 549 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 08.07.2010 H.Negi