JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA, J.

1. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 372/2018, Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341 and Section 27 of Arms Act.

2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant through video conferencing as well as learned Public Prosecutor, present in person. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states 10 persons are named in the FIR but accused petitioner is not named in the FIR. As per prosecution, allegation of fire arm against Jagdish @ Jangla and Abhishek Gaur is alleged and Investigation officer certified to the same to Jagdish @ jangla and Abhishek Gaur. Initially the charge-sheet was filed against four persons, Sunil Rayaka, Sachin @ Sushil, Karanjot @ Harry and Anmol Nagpal. At the time of rejection of first bail application, statement of PW4 Arun was not completed; and thereafter his statement is completely recorded and PW5, Pradeep Kumar, eye witness also appeared before the learned trial court, but no specific injury is attributed to the accused petitioner and only omnibus allegations are levelled against him; specific allegation is levelled against two co-accused persons Jagdish @ Jangla and Abhishek Gaur. It is further stated that during recording of statement on 06.01.2020, earlier accused petitioner was first identified as Sunil Raika and subsequently identified as Rahul Nayak, therefore, the accused petitioner was not correctly identified; no test identification parade was conducted, this suggestion was admitted by witness in cross-examination that during his statement, witness admitted that name of Karanjot @ Harry, Bhawani and Rahul was not mentioned in Ex. P/5 because has not known to him by name. He further stated in his statement that he could not identify the accused petitioner by name. It is also submitted that Pradeep Kumar (PW5) admitted that name of the accused petitioner came into his knowledge during discussion with friends; he further admitted that after arrest of Karanjot, Bhawani and Rahul, he went to the police station and they were pointed out by the police; and no test identification parade was conducted before the Magistrate. It is further stated that in the post-mortem report available at page No. 124, one puncture wound was found and as per the injury report of injured Ajay as well as Pradeep, their injuries are simple in nature, none of the injuries are found to be grievous in nature and on vital part of the body, no specific injury is attributed to the accused petitioner and at the most the offences of Sections 120B and 149 IPC are made out against the accused petitioner. It is submitted that the accused petitioner is behind the bars since 12.07.2019, statement of Pradeep Kumar (PW5) has already been recorded, therefore, he may be given benefit of bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned counsel appearing for the complainant through video conferencing, have opposed the bail application and stated that in the FIR it was mentioned that apart from the accused petitioner, there are 3-4 other persons and the offence was committed with common object and the bail applications of Karanjot, Sachin and Laxman were rejected by this Court.

5. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that these bail applications were rejected before completion of statements of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. Thereafter, statements are recorded.

6. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the above-mentioned admissions made during the cross-examination of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 which are recorded before the learned trial Court, and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any op