HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 32 of 2025 Ravi Dutt ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 0661 of

2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.324 of 2024, was rejected on

01.07.2024.

4. According to the FIR, on 16.10.2023, at 2:30 PM, the applicant alongwith the co-accused attacked the informant, his daughter and his brother-in-law. They were armed with iron rod and sariya, etc., due to which, the informant and other family members sustained serious injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that during investigation, specific role of hitting on the head was assigned to the applicant; there was only one injury, but during trial, the victim has been examined as PW2. He has assigned role to the applicant and the co-accused and has also stated that, in fact, the co-accused Guddu also had an iron rod and the co-accused Manish had a danda, and they all assaulted him, due to which, due to which he sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the co-accused have already been granted bail.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the informant has not supported the prosecution case at trial; the victim has categorically stated that it is the applicant also, who hit the victim on his head, which is confirmed in the medical report.

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. There is only one injury on the head of the victim. During investigation, specific role of hitting on the head was assigned to the applicant. That is how his bail application of the applicant was rejected. In his examination in the Court, the victim, who was examined as PW2, states that he was assaulted by the applicant and the co-accused. The co-accused also had sariya in his hand. As stated, there was only one injury on the head of the victim.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. 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.

(Ravindra Maithani, J)

22.05.2025

Ravi Bisht