orders and in all the bail orders, it was observed that specific allegations were made against the applicant of causing the injuries by use of iron rod and there was no such allegation against the coaccused, they were enlarged on bail. Their bail orders on record as Annexure No. 10. While arguing the present bail application, the counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the brother of the deceased, who was also injured and was present along with the deceased, who in his examination in chief reiterated the allegation that the applicant had caused the injuries by the use of iron rod, however, in his cross examination, he specifically stated that he was not aware as to who of the eight co-accused had caused the three injuries on the deceased. He further stated that the incident was also witnessed by two other witnesses namely Dhruv Lal Yadav and Sumit Yadav. My attention is further drawn to the statement of the brother of the deceased, who had stated that three unknown persons had caused the injuries whom the said witness could not recognized. He also stated that he was not aware as to how the incident was narrated to the father of the deceased, who was also the informant. Similar discrepancies were pointed out in the statement of the other witness namely Shushant Pal. In the light of the said, it is argued that main evidence implicating the applicant of causing main injury has not been supported in the cross examination, as such, the applicant who is in custody since 06.06.2022 may be enlarged on bail. The criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in para 28, which are not major cases.
