HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2397 of 2024 Muneer ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Advocate through video conferencing with Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 130 of 2024, under Section 302 & 24 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 12.03.2024, the son of the informant had some quarrel with Usman and his children, which was subsequently, settled by the villagers, but due to it, FIR records that Usman became inimical to the informant. On 17.03.2024, at 7:30, when the son of the informant Kasif was passing through a medical shop, he was attacked by the applicant and others. Another son of the informant Saddam came to save his brother, but the FIR records that the applicant stabbed him on his stomach, due to which, he died. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is cross FIR. FIR No. 165 of 2024, at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar was lodged by Mahmood with regard to the same incident against Fareed, Khalid and others; it is Fareed, who wanted to kill Rauf and in that process, his knife hit Saddam in his stomach, due to which, he sustained injury. It is argued that, in fact, the applicant has sustained serious head injuries. He was taken to hospital, from where, he was referred to AIIMS, Rishikesh. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that there are definitely cross FIRs. Let it be noted that FIR in the instant case was lodged on 18.03.2024 at 08:03 A.M., whereas, the cross FIR was lodged on 05.04.2024. Learned State counsel would submit that the witnesses, namely, Abdul Rehman, Aalim, Rakib and others have supported the prosecution case. The medical examination report also supports the prosecution case. There has been recovery of knife from the applicant. There have been injuries suffered from both the sides. 6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the injury report that has been filed by the applicant is not reliable. He could not procure any report from the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, he visited Meerut and got the report. 7. 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 3 at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 8. If an injury on an accused is not explained, various inferences may be drawn. At time, it makes the prosecution case doubtful and at times, it does not affect the prosecution case. In the instant case, there are allegations against each other by the opposite parties. 9. Learned State counsel would submit that there are injuries on both the parties. There is specific allegation against the applicant that it is he who stabbed the deceased Saddam. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.03.2025 Jitendra