HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 263 of 2024 Salman ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.542 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.15 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.07.2024. 3. According to the FIR, on 01.09.2022, the applicant stabbed the sister and the niece of the informant. They both died. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is no eye-witness, as such; PW2, is highly interested witness; as per PW2, he 2 had seen the incident from Ashyana Building, but this building is not shown in the site plan; the testimony of the interested single witness may not be sole basis of conviction; there is no other corroborating evidence; according to the FSL report, blood of deceased Shabana was detected from the clothes of the applicant, but it also, according to her, doubts the prosecution case, because if the applicant stabbed two deceased, his clothes would have been stained by the blood of both the deceased, which is not the case. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the informant, PW2, Ameer Ahmed, and PW3, Nadeem, have supported the prosecution case; the weapon of offence was recovered from the applicant; there are photographs; the FSL report confirms the prosecution case. Hence, it is not a case for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned State Counsel. 7. It is a 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 proceeding. 3 8. PW2 has categorically stated as to what had happened. According to him, the applicant stabbed both the deceased. He has identified the photograph, in which, according to him, the applicant could be seen moving with a knife in his hand. It is the prosecution case that the weapon of offence, knife, was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Not only this, the FSL report confirms that on the undershirt, t-shirt of the applicant, blood was detected, which had the same female human source, which is on the dupatta of the deceased Shabana. 9. Having considered, this Court does not see any new ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.05.2025 Ravi Bisht