IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence, the nature of the accusations, and the severity of the punishment in considering the grant of bail, as well as the principles related to dying declarations and the admissibility of evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking regular bail in FIR No.605/2021, dated 21.05.2021, for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at PS Mangolpuri. Chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:

2.1 On 21.05.2021, a PCR call was received by Sub Inspector Pritam (the complainant) regarding a person having been shot in front of Khushi Store, near Indra Park, Mangolpuri. The complainant reached the spot and found a pool of blood there.

2.2 Other police officials, including Constable Sanjeev and beat Head Constable Rakesh, also reached the spot. They informed the complainant that they had come to the spot earlier as well on the basis of information from an unknown person regarding a quarrel in the street.

2.3 It is alleged that the constable Sanjeev, on reaching the spot at the first instance, went towards the said road and took the injured victim on an E-rikshaw to SGM Hospital along with beat Head Constable Rakesh. It is also alleged that constable Sanjeev had spotted three persons running, one armed with a katta and the other two with knives. It is further alleged that the injured victim, on way to the hospital, informed that the accused Ashu and his friends had shot and stabbed him. The injured victim further informed that he had a conflict with accused Ashu as his brother was in jail in the murder case of a relative of accused Ashu.

2.4 On the same day, FIR No.605/2021 was lodged at the instance of the Sub Inspector Pritam under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 initially. After the victim succumbed to his injuries, Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added in the FIR.

2.5 The applicant was arrested on 22.05.2021, and has remained in custody since then.

2.6 The statement of the victim under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded on 23.05.2021. The victim stated that his brother is in custody for the murder of accused Ashu's brother. He stated that accused Ashu had shot him. He stated that the applicant was standing near the India Park Gate with a knife and screamed to the other co-accused persons to kill the victim and pursuant to the incitement, the other two co-accused persons stabbed him. He stated that the accused persons fled from the scene on seeing the policemen.

2.7 The victim expired on 29.05.2021 due to his injuries.

2.8 The statement of the victim's father under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded on 19.06.2021, wherein he stated that the applicant was standing near the gate with a knife in his hands, and had instigated the co-accused persons to kill the victim. He further stated that pursuant to the same, two of the co-accused persons had stabbed the victim.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the FIR only states that "Ashu and his friends" had shot and stabbed the victim, and the applicant is not named in the FIR. Moreover, he submitted that only three assailants have been mentioned in the FIR, one with a pistol and two with knives. He submits that the implication of the applicant, who is alleged to be the fourth person involved in the crime, is clearly an afterthought.

4. He submitted that the statement of the victim cannot be treated as dying declaration and pointed out that the same is not supported by any doctor as a witness. He further pointed out that the victim had not named the applicant as an assailant to the police officials initially as per the FIR.

5. He submitted that despite not being named, the applicant was arrested for no reason on 22.05.2021, even before the statement of the deceased victim was recorded on 23.05.2021, where the applic