and injury no.2 exit wound over right side of scapula, which may not be considered to be an injury other than gunshot injury; that the case of co-accused Jitendra Yadav is distinguishable from applicant and applicant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity, as he has not been assigned with the role of causing gunshot injury on the chest of Nitendra Yadav; that Annexure no.4 to the second bail application shows that statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 4.7.2017 and after his examination-in-chief, adjournment was sought on behalf of accused for cross examination and cross examination with him was completed after a period of around 08 months on 28.3.2018 and on 25.4.2018 statement of victim Nitendra was recorded as P.W.2 and again adjournment was sought by accused for cross examining him and since then cross examination with him has not completed as yet, though part of his cross examination was recorded on 16.10.2018 in 5 pages; that the contention of learned counsel for applicant that on certain dates, witness did not turn up, has no force, as the copy of order sheet on record with supplementary affidavit shows that on certain dates, Presiding Officer was on leave and on several dates when witness appeared, he was not cross examined; that the trial is in progress and there is every likelihood of its early disposal; that the injured witness is under examination and applicant himself is postponing cross examining with him with a malafide intention to win them over; that applicant if released on bail, shall misuse liberty of bail and will tamper with prosecution evidence and try to win over injured witnesses.
