HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Fourth Bail Application No.18 of 2024 Saurabh ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.131 of 2020, dated 02.08.2020 (S.T. No.110 of 2021), under Sections 307, 394, 397 IPC read with 34 IPC, Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. It is fourth bail application of the applicant. His first and second bail applications have already been rejected on 20.05.2021, 13.03.2023 respectively and his third bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.06.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 01.08.2020 at 08.05 PM, when the informant along with his friend was returning to Dehradun in the forest area, they were 2 chased by two motorcycle borne assailants, who overtook them and fired at them, due to which, the fire hits the associates of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody since 2020; charges were framed in the year 2021; the informant has not supported the prosecution case; they are not identified by the assailants in the court; PW2 is the doctor and PW3 is the Investigating Officer; the witnesses have yet not been examined even after lapse of five years. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has never sought adjournment. 5. These facts are not disputed by the learned State counsel. 6. Delay is one of the reasons for considering bail. In the instant matter, generally bail is denied until the witnesses are examined. But, here is the case which pertains to 01.08.2020. Informant has not supported the prosecution case during cross-examination. Since then, four years have completed, the informant has not been examined and what the prosecution has examined are, the Investigating Officer and the doctor. It is submitted that 3 out of 13 witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined. 7. 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. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 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.) 19.03.2025 Sanjay