rickshaw, got down and came near the truck’s cabin. He heard the commotion and skirmish between the first informant and four assailants and would record that he heard a gun shot. As opposed to the two statements; one of the first informant and the other of the rickshaw driver who is one of the witnesses, the spot panchnama at page No. 71 of the Bail Application rather speaks to the contrary. According to the spot panchnama, there were two bullets fired and found embedded; one below the seat next to the driver and second embedded in a black colour top placed on the engine of the truck, both being 7.6 mm bullets which were fired from the firearm. Next, in view of the factual details of physical appearance given by the informant, the Investigating Officer has not carried out the test identification parade (TIP) till date which is the admitted position. There is no forensic science laboratory report also placed on record so as to understand as to whether firing took place from the weapon used by the assailant. Next, recovery of weapon is also intriguing in the present case. The weapon has been recovered from accused No. 7, Vinod Kumar Shivchandra Sahani in the present case. He has in fact been granted bail by the learned Trial Court on 20.10.2023. The question that would arise before the Court is the nexus of the present Applicant (Org. Accused No. 9) to the commission of the act of firing which does not stand proved from the statements of the witnesses
