Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No.1599 of 2024 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. On the previous date, the State Counsel was directed to get instruction on two points. The first was as to why Arpit was exonerated in the charge- sheet particularly when he was named by the complainant in the FIR and specific role was also assigned to him and the second was that if as per the CDR report the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence, then why the present applicant has been chargesheeted, though the applicant was named in the FIR and a specific role was assigned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that this is a case of over implication and as per the prosecution story, which is based upon the CDR report, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence. He further argued that even on bare perusal of the FIR, no gun-shot injury was caused by the applicant and the gun shot injury was caused by Nakul, therefore, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 6. He also argued that there is no recovery of tamancha from the applicant. 7. On the other side, the State Counsel submits that the CDR report is only meant for location of mobile but not meant for location of the applicant, therefore, the argument, as advanced that as per the CDR report the applicant was not present at the time of occurrence, cannot be accepted. 8. Apart from this, the learned State counsel also submits that apart from this there is ample evidence and one such evidence is a phone call to one Abhishek by the applicant to whom he has requested to remove the DVR from his own house. He also submits that such a conduct, just after incident, is also one of the important factors on the basis of which the applicant was charge- sheeted. 9. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the complainant submits that two mobile phones were in operation of the applicant and as per the CDR report, the location of both the mobiles were in different locations. 10. After hearing the arguments at length and further without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find any merit in the present bail application. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.02.2025 R.Bisht