The interpretation of new evidence, such as CCTV footage, can influence the court's decision in granting bail and may reveal discrepancies in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant- Kanvar Pal is in judicial custody in FIR No.951 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504 and 302 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Laksar, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 16.12.2021, at 9:00 in the morning, the applicant along with the co-accused waylaid the deceased. The deceased was attacked and abused by them. It is the co-accused Arun, who fired at the deceased, due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; the incident was captured in a CCTV footage, which establishes that the applicant was not involved in the case. In fact, only two persons were fighting with each other, and in that process, one had fallen down. It is argued that, in fact, the allegations are against co-accused Arun. He would submit that now the Investigating Officer has submitted a report by way of a supplementary counter affidavit filed by Manoj Gairola, the Senior Sub Inspector, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, which reveals that the incident was between two persons, whereas, in the FIR, there are five and some other persons named.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the applicant has been placing the CCTV footage before the various authorities and courts, but it has never been taken into consideration and in the initial counter affidavit, the State has stated that the CCTV footage is not part of the investigation.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that it was a marpeet between two persons. In that process, one had fallen down. He would also submit that the video footage was from a distance, therefore, the identification of the assailants could not be made.

7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that earlier proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were initiated against the applicant.

8. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that co-accused Sonu Kumar and Monu Kumar bails have already been rejected. Their roles were also similar.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the CCTV footage was not before the Court when the bail applications of co-accused Sonu Kumar and Monu Kumar were rejected.

10. It is the prosecution case that Arun did fire at the deceased. It is further the prosecution case that now in this bail application, by way of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Senior Sub Inspector, that, in fact, it was a fight between two persons, which means not amongst five and more named persons and the deceased.

11. In view of this new fact, which has been brought to the notice of the Court earlier, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.