HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.88 of 2025 Javed ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the applicant.. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 422 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 & 120B IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on 23.09.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 09.05.2021; there are 60 witnesses; till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined; it is a case fit for bail. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant submits that it is a heinous crime. It is a case of indiscriminate firing. A country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Hence, it is not a case fit for bail. 2 6. Undoubtedly, it is a case of firing. In para 3 of the first bail rejection order of the co-accused dated 27.09.2023, this Court has noted the facts as below:- “According to the FIR, on 06.05.2021, in the morning at 08:00, an altercation ensued between Irshad and Israil on the one side and Julfikar and Fareed on another side. Irshad is uncle of the informant. On the same day, there was death in the family of the informant. The family members had gone for burial. While coming back, another altercation took place. The third incident, according to the FIR, happened at 01:30 PM on the same date, when the applicant Imran from the roof of Istkhar alias Pappan and applicants Intzaar and Javed from the gate of Dilshad opened indiscriminate fire, due to which, Hussain Ahmad, Mohd. Kaif, Shahjan and Jaheer Hassan died, and Rijwan and Gayyur sustained injuries.” 7. Learned State counsel admits this fact that till date only 10 witnesses have been examined out of 60 charge-sheeted witnesses. It is also admitted that the applicant is in custody since 09.05.2021. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that though it is stated that from the possession of the applicant, 315 bore country-made pistol was recovered, but he submits that there is no injury of any 315 bore country-made pistol in any of the injured. 9. Learned senior counsel for the informant submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail some conditions should be imposed that they should not approach the witnesses or the family members of the deceased or injured, in any manner, whatsoever. 10. Having considered the period of incarceration 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. 11. The bail application is allowed. 3 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not approach the injured, the family members of the deceased either personally or through any of his relatives or through any other mode. (ii) The applicant shall not make any post on social media platform or electronically at any other place with regard to the incident or this case. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.10.2025 Jitendra