IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of serious allegations, the specificity of charges in the FIR and the credibility of the investigation play crucial roles in determining bail eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

Applicant Rohit Alias Billa is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.909 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 394, 504 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. This is the third bail application. The second bail application, being BA2 No.84 of 2023, was rejected on 15.06.2023.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.12.2021, the applicant and the co-accused abused the injured Badal. The applicant fired at him on his back.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of mistaken identity. The FIR, after investigation, was found partially false. She would submit that Rohit and Romit both are brothers. Both were named in the FIR, and the FIR records that Romit alias Billa did fire at the injured. During investigation, it was found that Romit alias Billa was not at the place of incident. He was working in a company. Therefore, he has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. Now, it is argued, Rohit alias Billa has been assigned the role of firing by the injured and the informant in their statements recorded during investigation. It is submitted that it doubts the prosecution case.

6. Learned State Counsel admits that the role of firing was initially assigned in the FIR to Romit alias Billa, and no specific role was assigned to Rohit. She would submit that during investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated Romit alias Billa on the basis of some documents of a company and based on the statement of the independent witness, but she would submit that during investigation, the injured and the informant have stated that it is the applicant, who fired at the injured.

7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

8. As per the prosecution case, the person, who was assigned the role of shooting, i.e. Romit alias Billa, has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer based on some documents and the statements of some independent witnesses. In the FIR, main role has been assigned to Romit alias Billa. It is not that there is confusion in the names of Romit and Rohit. They are two separate persons and they have been as such named in the FIR. In the FIR, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant Rohit alias Billa. Specific role has been assigned to Romit alias Billa, who, as stated, has been exonerated during investigation. Thereafter, the main role was assigned to Rohit. He is apparently a different person than Romit. Who, as per the FIR, is actually the main shooter? Perhaps, once the witnesses are examined, it may undergo scrutiny during that stage of trial.

9. Having considered the facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. 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.