ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein is father of two children, who are alleged to have been murdered by respondent no.2 herein. 3. Respondent no.2 was arrested in connection with the crime registered vide FIR No.363/2021 dated 15.06.2021 with P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). 4. Contending that he has delicate health, he approached the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for grant of bail, inter alia, on medical grounds. 5. By the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, the High Court has considered the Fourth Bail Application No.11/2023 filed by respondent No. 2 herein and has granted bail on medical grounds. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, who is the informant and father of the deceased children, has filed this appeal. 7. During the pendency of this matter, by order dated 07.01.2025, we had directed respondent No. 1/State to present respondent no.2 before the Medical Board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to submit a report within a period of three weeks from that day. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State has produced a copy of the Report dated 03.02.2025. The Report reads as under - 'No.F.-46-1/2025/MB-Estt.(CNC) Date: 03.02.2025 Sub: - Report of Medial Board for Medical examination of Sh. Rakesh Mishra alias Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu Mishra (UHID No.105762346 and CV No.16020/21) as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 07.01.2025 vide SLP No.1731/2024 titled Ajit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr reg. xxx The meeting of the Medical Board was held under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ambuj Roy, Prof. Deptt. Of Cardiology on 03.02.2025 (Monday) at 11.30 AM I Room 13, Near MS Office, AIIMS, New Delhi. The following members of the medical board were present in the meeting: 1. Dr. Ambuj Roy Prof. of Cardiology Chairperson 2. Dr. Sanjay Wadhwa Prof. Of PMR Member 3. Dr. Pradeep R. Associate Prof. of CTVS Member 4. Dr. P. Rajashekar AMS, CTC Member 5. Dr. Satyavir Yadav Asso. Prof. of Cardiology Member Secretary Medical Board Opinion : - Patient (UHID No.105762346 and CV No.16020/21) was examined and relevant investigations were done. Dr. Ambuj Roy Prof. of Cardiology Chairperson 2. Dr. Sanjay Wadhwa Prof. Of PMR Member 3. Dr. Pradeep R. Associate Prof. of CTVS Member 4. Dr. P. Rajashekar AMS, CTC Member 5. Dr. Satyavir Yadav Asso. Prof. of Cardiology Member Secretary Medical Board Opinion : - Patient (UHID No.105762346 and CV No.16020/21) was examined and relevant investigations were done. The old medical records of AIIMS, Delhi were reviewed, and the following medical condition was confirmed: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Dilated Cardiomyopathy with severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF 20-25%) with NYHA functional Class III. This is a chronic progressive medical condition requiring regular treatment and medical follow up. The patient needs to continue follow up from AIIMS, Delhi Cardiology OPD as per previous registration or other tertiary hospital and adhere to medical advice as given from time to time.' 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is a case where the allegations were made against four persons and the brother of respondent no.2 and two other persons have already been exonerated by the police themselves, inasmuch as no charge-sheet has been filed as against them; and respondent no.2 was arrested and was in jail. However, the benefit of bail has been granted to him solely due to medical reasons. She submitted that having regard to the opinion of the Medical Board, respondent no.2 can be given medical attention for his condition as well as the follow-up treatment as and when required either before AIIMS, New Delhi or in any other suitable hospital. The allegations against respondent no.2 herein are serious. The High Court has lost sight of this fact and also the fact that there have been no condition imposed for the grant of bail on medical grounds to respondent no.2 herein. She further submitted that five out of thirty four witnesses have been examined and they have stood the test of cross-examination inasmuch as they have been consistent in their deposition; that other material witnesses have to be examined but if respondent no.2 is out on bail, there is a grave apprehension in the mind of the appellant inasmuch as the trial itself may be prejudiced and jeopardized. Further learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not imposed any condition nor has directed the Sessions Court to impose any condition on respondent no.2 herein while granting bail. Further learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not imposed any condition nor has directed the Sessions Court to impose any condition on respondent no.2 herein while granting bail. In the circumstances, impugned order may be set aside and respondent no.2 may be directed to surrender and he may be taken into custody. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1/State submitted that having regard to the medical report and the facts of the present case, appropriate orders may be made in this appeal. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1/State. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 with reference to his counter statement submitted that the medical condition of respondent no.2 is serious inasmuch as there is severe dysfunction of left ventricular of the heart (LVEF 20-25%). This is a chronic progressive medical condition requiring regular treatment and medical follow up. The Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi has also suggested that the patient has to continue follow up treatment from AIIMS, Delhi Cardiology OPD and therefore, the High Court was justified in granting bail on purely medical reasons and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 12. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material on record. 13. We note that respondent no.2 was earlier granted interim bail on three occasions and thereafter by the impugned order, respondent no.2 has been granted bail on the basis of the medical report submitted by the Medical Officer, Sub-Jail, Haldwani. No doubt, what has been stated in the said Report as well as in the Report dated 03.02.2025 of the AIIMS, New Delhi are almost identical. However, the question that had to be considered by the High Court was, whether, given the medical condition of respondent no.2 herein and the serious allegations alleged against him whether, he was entitled to be released on bail purely on medical reasons or could have been continued in jail subject to the provision of medical attention. 14. In this regard, we find that the allegations against respondent no.2 herein are serious inasmuch as two sons of the appellant are alleged to have been shot dead by respondent no.2 herein. 15. 14. In this regard, we find that the allegations against respondent no.2 herein are serious inasmuch as two sons of the appellant are alleged to have been shot dead by respondent no.2 herein. 15. In the circumstances, by bearing in mind the serious allegations as against respondent no.2 herein, we find that the High Court ought not to have granted the relief of bail purely on medical reasons to him. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority on or before 31.03.2025. 16. It is however, observed that the jail authority shall provide the best of medical treatment to respondent no.2 as and when required either in any of the hospitals in the State of Uttarakhand or at AIIMS, New Delhi as the situation may require. This Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.