An inquest report does not require naming the accused; its primary purpose is to establish the apparent cause of death and injuries.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.100 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that as per the prosecution story, the applicant is alleged to have fired upon the deceased Vishal and killed him at the gate of his housing society. He further submitted that though the first informant himself claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident in his statement, but in the site plan, the place where he was sitting at the time of incident was not mentioned. He further submitted that as per the G.D. report, information regarding the incident in question was also received by the police through some unknown person and as per the G.D. report dated 12.05.2025 at 7:50 P.M., some unknown person fired upon the deceased Vishal, and his father has taken him to the hospital, therefore, till the deceased was taken to the hospital, exact person who has fired upon the deceased was not known. He next submitted that as per the hospital records, the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 12.05.2025. wherein it was mentioned that his father brought him to the hospital and he told that some unknown person fired upon the deceased. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the father of first informant Gyani was the one of the panch witnesses of inquest but name of the applicant was not mentioned as assailant instead unknown assailant was mentioned, therefore, till the time of inquest actual name of the accused was not known and subsequently applicant was falsely nominated as accused. He further submitted that though all the alleged eye-witnesses clearly stated that the present applicant fired upon the deceased Vishal, but post-mortem report shows that the deceased Vishal received two firearm injuries and such fact was not mentioned in the statement of the injured. He further submitted that it is a case of blind murder, and on the basis of doubt, as the applicant was one of the witness of murder case in which the deceased was accused, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the site plan it is mentioned that the applicant along with unknown person came on the spot on motorcycle and fired upon the deceased and run away on motorcycle, but no 'fard' of the motorcycle was prepared by the police. There is no incriminating material against the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation/trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that not only the father but there are several other persons have seen the present applicant while he was doing 'Reiki' of the deceased, and this fact has been duly substantiated by the UPI payment being made by the applicant at 3:30 P.M. at the shop adjacent to the place of incident. They further sub