It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was got lodged against unknown miscreants. Subsequently, the two co-accused, namely, Taufeek and Rafeeq were shown to be apprehended in a police firing of no injury case and it was said that they made their confessions in that case regarding commission of present offence. They also confessed that the applicant is also involved in the commission of the present offence along with them. On the basis of alleged confessions of the aforesaid co-accused, name of applicant has surfaced in present case. The applicant has not fired upon the Home Guard Badlu Singh. No identification was got conducted by alleged injured Home Guard Badlu Singh. It is further argued that except the confessional statements of the aforesaid co-accused, there is no independent or public witness on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. In view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, such confessional statements, which have been recorded before the Police cannot be accepted as the same have no evidentiary value. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused, namely, Taufeeq and Rafeeq have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st May, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4196 of 2019. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant si also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has nine criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one but the same have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. It is next contended that
