to be examined. He further submits that armed weapons were involved in the present case, which shows the gravity of the attack, and in fact the country-made pistol has also been recovered at the instance of the coaccused Durga Nand. He submits that the applicant can be clearly seen as part of the group in the CCTV footage recovered and thus, seeing the prima facie case against him, the present application ought to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant, in support of learned APP, also submits that the applicant along with the co-accused had been searching for an opportunity to initiate a fight with the complainant since a long time due to their prior scuffle, and hence, the entire act was premeditated with a clear motive, and the applicant ought not be granted any benefit of the role assigned, especially when there is every possibility of his intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, as also absconding like three of the other co-accused who are currently missing. 6. Heard. 7. Careful perusal of the record shows that though the applicant has been named in the FIR from the start till the end, no specific role has been assigned to him insofar either the scuffle and/ or the infliction of injuries upon the complainant and his friends is concerned. There is also no denial to the fact that the father of the applicant had himself filed an application before the Police to obtain the CCTV footage of the incident.
