and Hansraj were found to be grievous in nature and the concerned medical jurist specifically opined that the injuries sustained to them were not dangerous to life. It is also contended that it is alleged in the FIR that Rajendra has sustained firearm injury at his leg but the medical jurist has specifically opined that the injury caused to injured Rajendra at his leg was not firearm injury. It is also contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed considering the CCTV footage and call details, wherein the presence of the present accusedpetitioner was found along with the stick in the CCTV footage analysis. It is also alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner caused injuries to injured Ajay, however, injured Ajay in his statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has stated that the injuries caused to him are attributed to the other co-accused and not to the present petitioner. It is also contended that after submission of the charge-sheet, the other co-accused Rajpal has been enlarged on bail and his name was mentioned in the FIR, whereas the petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR. It is also contended that the injuries sustained to Anita, Ramrati, Saroj were found to be simple in nature. The injury at thumb of injured Saroj was found to be grievous in nature. The injured witnesses Ramrati, Rajendra, Anita and Saroj in their statements have specifically attributed their injuries to the other co-accused and name of the present petitioner did not appear in their statements. It is also contended that there is a land dispute between the petitioner and the complainant party for which civil litigation is pending. It is also contended that this is a case of free fight and not a case of trespass or forming unlawful assembly. It is also
