Bail granted in murder case due to prosecution lapses: no forensic bullet-firearm link, site plan discrepancies, unexplained applicant injuries, absent cartridge recovery, uninformed local police.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.765 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 109 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the prosecution case, the first informant Vimal Rai, who was posted in Sector 30, Sector 31, Faridabad, Haryana had visited Haridwar with regard to investigation of Case Crime No.578, under Sections 394, 397, 307, 342, 34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 of Police Station Munesar, Faridabad. They spotted a car bearing Haryana registration number in Deen Dayal Parking and, they spotted four persons around there, including the applicant. Two of the persons were made to sit in a private car and the applicant along with the deceased was made to sit in car bearing Haryana No. HR28H 2138. But suddenly, the applicant pulled out a pistol from below the co-driver seat and opened the fire in the air and threatened and he started running away. The deceased Constable Sandeep tried to apprehend him, but he was shot dead by the applicant, due to which, he died. Thereafter, the applicant ran away from the place of incident while opening fire. He jumped from the first floor and ran away. Three of his associates were arrested.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that entire case is false; according to the prosecution case, the police party had come from Haryana and they had reached at Haridwar at about 06-06:30 in the evening, but they did not inform the local police; the bullet which stucked in the body of the deceased Constable Sandeep was not sent for forensic examination so as to connect it with the firearm allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant; police did not recover any cartridge case or live cartridge of 315 bore; police also did not recover any cartridge case or live cartridge or the firearm used by the police; the site plan does not establish the prosecution case because it was the roof top of the parking, whereas according to the witnesses, the incident took place on the first floor; in the site plan, the vehicles position has not been shown from where, for the first time, the applicant opened fire; there is no source of light shown in the site plan, whereas the incident allegedly took place at about 10:00 in the night.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would also submit that, in fact, according to the prosecution itself, the applicant himself did also sustain firearm injury and he was taken to hospital in 108 Ambulance. The record of 108 Ambulance has not been shown. It is not shown, as to who had informed the 108 Ambulance and what was the first information given with regard to injuries that was sustained by the applicant. She also argued that, in fact, according to the prosecution, at the instance of the applicant, some counterfeit currency notes and a pistol were recovered, which was kept by the applicant in a polythene. She submits that it has no blood stain. It belies the prosecution case because admittedly, according to the prosecution, the applicant was bleeding and he had firearm injury. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case for bail.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who opened fire at the police party, due to which, one of the Police Constables died and he submits that the incident was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses, who had been examined at trial. It is submitted that 06 witnesses have already been examined.

7. It is the stage of bail. M