HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1783 of 2023 Rajkumar Malik ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. S.C. Burman, Advocate for the informant through video conferencing. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 47 of 2023, under Sections 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 05.02.2023, at about 9:30 PM, the applicant alongwith the co-accused had a fight with Amardeep Chaudhary and others. FIR records that the applicant Rajkumar fired a shot on Amardeep Chaudhary on his head and he also shot fire at Badal Chaudhary, but somehow he could escape. There are averments with regard to fire at Sonu Rathi also. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that according to the FIR, it is Rajkumar Malik, who fired at Amardeep Chaudhary, but the sole witness Sonu Rathi had 2 stated that Mandeep had fired at Amardeep Chaudhary. She would submit that when witness Badal reached at the place of incident, he was also told by Sonu Rathi that Mandeep had fired at Amardeep Chaudhary. 5. This factual narration is admitted by learned State counsel. Though according to learned State counsel, in his evidence before the court, witness Badal had stated that it is the applicant who also fired at the deceased Amardeep Chaudhary. It is admitted to the parties that PW4 Badal has yet not been cross examined. 6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that according to PW4 Badal, it is the applicant who fired at the deceased Amardeep Chaudhary, but he also admits that during investigation it was not so stated by the witness Badal. 7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 8. According to the FIR, the fire was shot by the applicant. There was one eyewitness Sonu Rathi. He told to the Investigating Officer that it is co-accused Mandeep who opened the fire and this is what eyewitness Sonu Rathi told 3 to Badal when he reached at the place of incident. Badal has so stated during investigation. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.01.2025 Jitendra