HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application No. 2122 of 2024 Kailash @ Kishore Manral ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Kailash @ Kishore Manral is in judicial custody in FIR No. 20 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 309(6) & 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Salt, District Almora. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 11.08.2024, the victim, who is a woman aged about 60 years, was travelling in a vehicle. On the way, a person also boarded the bus. When the victim alighted from the bus and moved towards her village, that person, who had boarded the bus on the way also alighted and followed the victim. It was around 12:45 noon. Suddenly, that person muffled the mouth of the victim, pressed against her neck and snatched her earrings, necklace, etc. and ran away. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not named in the FIR; he has no criminal history. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case; the victim has identified the looted articles, which were recovered from the applicant; in the Test Identification Parade, the victim has identified the applicant as the person, who looted her. 6. 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. 7. Definitely, the FIR is not named. But, it was stated that the victim could identify the assailant. The victim has identified him. The recovery of looted articles was made from the applicant. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 13.02.2025 Avneet/