IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL IA No.1 of 2022 For Delay Condonation Application In Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2025 Sunil ...... Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the appellant, through video conferencing. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.04.2022, passed in Second Bail Application No.746 of 2022, Sunil Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No.91 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar. 2. Heard on the Delay Condonation Application, IA No.1 of 2022. 3. Having considered, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2 4. The delay condonation application is allowed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. According to the prosecution, on 10.05.2018, the co-accused attacked the brother of the informant and opened fire. The informant was also shot, though he could escape himself. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence; he is not named in the FIR; during investigation, the appellant has been assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased; co-accused have already been granted bail. 8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the role assigned to the appellant is that he caught hold of the deceased when the deceased was fired at. He admits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. It is also admitted that some of the co-accused have been granted bail. One of them had the role of firing at some injured persons. 9. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the kind of role that has been assigned to the appellant is serious. 3 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the appellant should have been granted bail. Therefore, while setting aside the order, the bail application may allowed. 11. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 12. Let the appellant be released on bail 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.) 06.05.2025 Ravi Bisht