HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL 1st Bail Application No. 2426 of 2024 Deepak Budhani ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. K.H. Gupta, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Amit Kapri, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, Ms. Pallavi Bahuguna and Ms. Irum Zeba, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, AGA for the State. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Deepak Budhani is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 179 of 2024, under Section 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 07.10.2024, at about 10:50 p.m., the deceased along with his friends was watching Ram-leela in Haldwani. At that time, the co-accused in the presence of all the friends and others opened fire on the deceased, due to which he died. The FIR records that thereafter the co-accused along with the applicant ran away from the spot after threatening the persons present on the spot. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant; the applicant did not open fire; one of the witnesses Deepak Joshi has attributed the role of exhortation to the applicant, but the presence of Deepak Joshi is not 2 recorded in the FIR and no other witness has stated about his presence. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant would submit that it is not a case, which was committed in secrecy at any isolated place. He would submit that in the Ram-leela, the co-accused openly killed the deceased and Deepak Joshi had heard the applicant exhorting the co-accused to kill the deceased. He would submit that it makes no difference that the presence of Deepak Joshi has not been stated in the FIR and his presence as such has not been stated by other witnesses. 6. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the informant. 7. 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. 8. In fact, FIR may not be considered as an encyclopaedia, containing each and every averment, particularly the minor details of the incident. The FIR in the instant case has been lodged by the wife of the deceased. She has stated as to how the deceased was killed. According to the FIR, the co-accused killed her husband and it is the applicant, who along with the co-accused threatened the persons present there and thereafter ran away. 9. It is admitted that the other witnesses have not stated that Deepak Joshi was present on the spot. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant, at this stage, would submit that it is not necessary 3 that each witness should tell the investigating officer that who was present at the spot, witnessing the fact, which they have stated. 10. The only role assigned to the applicant is that he exhorted the co-accused to kill the deceased. Admittedly, there was no fight between the deceased and the co-accused, when firing was done. It is a case of straightway firing on the deceased by the co-accused. 11. 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. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. 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) 17.02.2025 Avneet/