Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is admitted to the parties, inasmuch as cross FIRs were lodged from both the side, as such the principal question required to be assaulted is as to who is aggressor, up to this stage, no such material has emerged on the basis of which the aggressor in the crime in question could be pointed out, as per postmortem report of the diseased Chandra Prakash, cause of death of deceased is Coma as a result of antimortem head injury, in the FIR giving rise to present application, general role has been assigned to all the accused, the author of the fatal injury sustained by deceased has not been specified in the statement of the witnesses examined under section 161 CrPC, applicant Deepak Narayan is not named in the FIR, his complicity is established in the statement of injured, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicant, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 373, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.
