HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 434 of 2024 Taradutt Nainwal and another ….....Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Shashank Saun, Advocate for the applicants through video conferencing. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicants Taradutt Nainwal and Vijay are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 01 of 2024, under Sections 307, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Jhiroli, District Bageshwar. They have sought their release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the injured was the driver of the applicant Taradutt Nainwal. He was not paid his wages. Therefore, on 15.01.2024, in the evening, the victim approached the applicant no. 1 and demanded his salary. When it was not paid, according to the FIR, the victim had said that “those who do not pay to the poor, suffers”. Thereafter, on the same day, at 08:30 in the evening, according to the FIR, both the applicants did maarpeet with the victim, due to which he sustained serious injuries and was taken to hospital. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR is delayed by three days. Initially the FIR was not lodged under Section 307 IPC; it was added after ten days. Learned counsel would also raise the following points in his submissions:- (i) After the incident, the victim was taken to hospital at 12:05 hrs., which is four hours after the incident. Had the injuries been grievous, the victim would have been taken to hospital admittedly. (ii) Medical examination report reveals that the victim was under intoxication. (iii) Medical examination report records the history of the injury as fall from height, which belies the prosecution case. (iv) It is the applicants, who took the victim to hospital. They had no intention to kill him. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim and her mother have supported the prosecution case; the medical report also supports the prosecution case. 3 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. It is a case of head injury. It is true that the FIR was lodged on 19.01.2024 after three days. Subsequently, the informant has stated that the incident took place on 16.01.2024. This is what the victim has also stated. The victim was taken to various hospitals. He was taken to a hospital at Delhi and thereafter the FIR was lodged. The delay per se in this case may not be a ground, which may entitle the applicants bail. 8. It is true that in the medical injury report, it is stated that the injury was sustained by fall from height. But, the fact remains that the victim was unconscious till then. When regained his consciousness, the victim has stated that on the date of incident, when was not paid the salary he made a few utterances, he was assaulted by both the applicants and it is the applicant Taradutt Nainwal, who hit on his head by a rod. The mother of the victim has also supported the prosecution case. According to the doctor, the injuries were grievous and immediate surgery was necessary to save the life of the victim. 4 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that insofar as the applicant Taradutt Nainwal is concerned, he is not entitled to bail. But, as the only role assigned to the applicant Vijay is that he caught hold of the victim, this Court is of the view that the applicant Vijay is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application qua the applicant Taradutt Nainwal deserves to be rejected and the bail application qua the applicant Vijay deserves to be allowed. 10. The bail application qua the applicant Taradutt Nainwal is rejected and the bail application qua the applicant Vijay is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Vijay 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) 13.02.2025 Avneet/