counsel for the petitioners further submits that, although the allegations in the FIR are that the petitioners inflicted a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, Nirotam, resulting in his death, the post-mortem report does not record any injury on the head of the deceased. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged against total eight persons and none of the eye-witnesses has specifically stated that the petitioners assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his head. Such material inconsistencies, it is argued, render the prosecution case highly imporabable qua the petitioners. The omission on the part of the eye-witnesses to specifically attribute a head blow to the petitioners, coupled with the absence of any corresponding injury on head, in the postmortem report creates a serious issue regarding the prosecution version. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners cannot be attributed with having caused the injury which allegedly resulted in the death of the deceased. It is further argued that although lathis have been recovered at the instance of both the petitioners, the said lathis were not found to be blood-stained and the recoveries are not supported by any forensic or scientific evidence connecting them with the alleged offence. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 30.10.2025 with no criminal antecedents and the investigation has already been completed with the filing of the charge-sheet. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further judicial custody, and the present bail application deserves to be allowed.
