HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 2221 of 2024 Rajkumar Singh @ Raju ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Rajkumar Singh @ Raju is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 298 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, in the intervening night of 12/13.06.2023, at 01:30 a.m., the informant received an information that a quarrel took place between the applicant and the deceased. The information was owner of the bakery, where the applicant and the deceased were working. The informant thereafter reached at the spot and found that the deceased was seriously injured on his head and he was bleeding. When the FIR was lodged the deceased was still in the hospital. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence in the matter; PW 6 Ummed Singh though has stated against the applicant, but he has not seen the incident; he has also said that there was no enmity between the applicant and the deceased, hence, it is a case fit for bail. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant, deceased and PW 6 Ummed Singh were working in the bakery of the informant; on the date of incident, there was an altercation between the applicant and the deceased, which was stated by PW 6 Ummed Singh; as per the statement of PW 6 Ummed Singh, after the altercation between the applicant and the deceased, he slept and in the mid night when he woke up, he noticed that the applicant was not in the room and the deceased was bleeding. 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. As per the prosecution case, there were three persons in the room. PW 6 Ummed Singh had already slept. Before that, there was an alteration between the applicant 3 and the deceased. The deceased was seriously injured on his head. He was bleeding. The applicant was not in the room and he was absconding. 8. Having considered these and all other attending factors, 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/