IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 1st Bail Application No. 945 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Farman .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 322/2010 U/s 395, 201, 342, 412, 420 IPC, PS Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. ___________________________________________________________________ November 24, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, the learned Brief Holder for the State. In spite of the time being granted, the State Counsel has not filed any counter affidavit. It has been alleged that the chargesheet was filed after the expiry of 90 days from the date of arrest of the applicant and consequently, in view of the provisions contained under sub- clause (2) of Section 167 of the CrPC, the applicant is entitled for bail. The aforesaid fact was accosted to the learned Brief Holder for the State, who has admitted that the chargesheet was filed after the expiry of 90 days. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant is entitled for bail. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Farman be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2010 under Section 395, 201, 342, 412, 420 IPC, PS Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar subject to his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 24.11.2010 PRABODH