Judgment Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR was lodged u/s 302 IPC but after the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet u/s 304 IPC. Further, whatever the incident was happened, that was happened due to sudden provocation and there was no motive to cause the injuries to the deceased Ghanshyam Kumar Chandola. He further submitted that the statements of the eyewitnesses, namely, Naveen Pandey and Vinod Chandola have also been recorded by the I.O. As per the statement of Naveen Chandra Pandey, co-accused Chhotu @ Vijendra caused injuries to Ghanshyam Chandola by stone and no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. 3. After considering all the facts and circumstances, perusing the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and also perusing the statements of the eyewitnesses Naveen Pandey and Vinod Chandola, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage. 4. Let applicant Om Prakash be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Nainital. 5. The bail application is allowed accordingly.