Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report has been registered against 06 persons including the applicant stating therein that all the accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathi, danda and rod. It is argued that the first informant is not an eye-witness to the incident. Later on, in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has disclosed that he was informed by one Sandeep Kumar, who was the eye-witness of the incident that the accused Vijay Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Satish Kumar (the applicant) have assaulted the deceased by kicks and fists and co-accused Shivam @ Arjun @ Tempo and Ajay Raj caused injuries to him by lathi. It is argued that in the statement of Sandeep Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons of causing injuries to the deceased by lathi and danda. The postmortem report shows only three injuries on the head of the deceased. It is argued that there is no specification as to who was the author of the said injuries received to the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that although the prosecution has shown the recovery of a ' lathi ' on the pointing out of the applicant but the same is from an open place and there is no independent witness to the same. It is further argued that co-accused Ashish Kumar and Satish Kumar, whose case is identical with that of the applicant, have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2021 and
