HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2219 of 2024 Arun Kumar @ DK ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 158 of 2022, under Section 307, 34 IPC, Police Station Premnagar, 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, on 10.06.2022, at 1:30 PM, the applicant alongwith the co-accused attacked the injured by a sharp edged weapon; injury was also caused on his neck; he was still in the hospital when FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that all other co-accused have already been granted bail; even the victim has assigned similar role to Pradeep Singh Negi also, who has already been granted bail; no weapon of offence has been recovered; CCTV footage does not reveal as to by which weapon, the applicant slit the throat of the victim. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant who slit the throat of the victim as has been stated by the victim himself. 2 She would submit that the incident has been captured in the CCTV. According to her, there are nine witnesses and all of them already been examined. All others accused have already been granted bail. 6. 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. 7. According to the victim, both the applicant and one Pradeep Singh Negi attacked him with iron axle. Thereafter, co-accused Pradeep Singh Negi catch hold the victim and the applicant slit his throat. PW7, SI Komal Singh in para 10 of his statement tells that one Vikram alias Kattar had hit the victim with a punch. He also says that as per CCTV footage, the applicant made a cut mark on the neck of the victim. 8. What was the weapon exactly? Admittedly, as per CCTV footage it is not clear. The victim has not stated that some Vikram @ Kattar hit him with a punch. In fact, he has not stated that Vikram @ Kattar had hit him. 9. Having considered this and other attending factors, 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) 19.06.2025 Jitendra