- (1.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far the applicant Vikki Arora (appellant No. 2 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 648/2013) is concerned, the case against him is clearly distinguishable from that against the other accused persons inasmuch as it was alleged against the applicant that he was carrying gandasi with him and took part in the incident with use of such a weapon but then, neither any injury from sharp -edged weapon is pointed out on the person of the deceased nor the alleged gandasi has been recovered in the matter.
(2.) IT is submitted that the alleged recovery of two empty cartridges at the instance of the applicant is seriously questionable and in any case, is not relatable to the allegations otherwise made by the alleged eye -witnesses. It is also submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and no useful purpose would be served with his further detention in the matter, particularly when the disposal of the appeal is likely to take longer time. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly opposed the bail application and has particularly submitted that the recovery of the empty cartridges at the instance of the applicant cannot be said to be a circumstance entirely irrelevant.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the complainant has additionally pointed out that another matter concerning FIR No. 22/09 Police Station Srikaranpur for offences, inter alia, under Section 307 IPC is pending trial wherein essentially allegations against the same accused persons are of having assaulted and caused injuries to the father of Mitu, the deceased in the present case. It is submitted that the present incident occurred after a few days of the incident related to the said FIR and a comprehension of the fact and surrounding factors makes it clear that the intention of the accused persons had been to kill the persons of the same family and they ultimately succeeded in killing Mitu, the deceased in the present case;