VINOD AND MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that during the tendency of bail application statement of the complainant Ramji Bhaiya and an eyewitness Ram Lakhan have been recorded in the trial court and both these witnesses have been declared hostile as none of them has supported the prosecution case. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that only these two above-named persons were cited as witness of fact in the charge sheet, who have also declared hostile and, now there is no other evidence left against the applicants in the hand of prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 29.3.2010.

(3.) After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned Counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and the statement of PW1 Ramji Bhaiya and PW2 Ram Lakhan filed along with the supplementary affidavit and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicants deserve bail at this stage.