HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Fourth Bail Application No.14 of 2024 Jaswinder Kaur ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand with Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, Advocates for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.171 of 2021, under Sections 302 & 120B IPC, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She has sought her release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed on 27.05.2022, the second bail application was rejected on 10.11.2022 and the third bail application was also rejected on 02.03.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody since 20.08.2021. Out of 29 witnesses, 14 witnesses have already been examined. But, he would submit that till date, no witness has stated anything against the applicant. It is argued 2 that the third bail application was rejected by this Court on 02.03.2023, till that date, 9 witnesses had been examined. Now, 14 witnesses have been examined. 5. Learned State Counsel admits that till date, there is no evidence against the applicant. She would submit that 14 witnesses have been examined and they have not stated anything against the applicant except for some calls which were made by the applicant to the co- accused. 6. The Court wanted to know that what was in those calls. Is there any calls recording? The answer is negative. 7. In all cases, the delay per se may not be the ground for bail. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. But then, delay may also be considered one of the grounds to enlarge a person on bail as per circumstances of each case. It is a case where the role assigned to the applicant is of conspiracy. She is in custody for the last more than three years now. Out of 29 witnesses, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and there is no evidence against the applicant, till now. It makes out a case for bail. 3 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 07.01.2025 Ravi