JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Since both these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants-Shiv Pal, Arjun and Rahul are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 826 of 2020, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 & 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 21.12.2020 when injured and deceased were returning to their village at about 9:30, the applicants fired at them, due to which, deceased-Ashish died at the spot. Injured-Dixit was taken to the hospital. He was serious when the FIR was lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, in fact, there were two more persons Mainpal and Manoj @ Raju, named in the FIR, who initially fired the deceased and injured. But, it is argued, based on the statement of one Rohit, given to the Investigating Officer, both Mainpal and Manoj @ Raju have been exonerated. It is argued that, it makes the prosecution case suspicious. In addition to this, it is also argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel would submit that the applicants are in custody for more than two years and till date only four witnesses have been examined. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the Forensic Science Laboratory report supports the prosecution case. It is submitted that three cartridges cases were recovered from the scene of occurrence, which according to the Forensic Science Report was fired from the country made pistols, which were recovered. It is also argued that the injured-Dixit has categorically stated that how all these three applicants fired, due to which Ashish died and he was injured. It is argued that, according to injured-Dixit, applicants-Shiv Pal and Rahul fired at deceased-Ashish, due to which he died and this witness was fired by applicant-Arjun. 7. It is true that two persons Mainpal and Manoj @ Raju have also been named in the FIR. It is admitted that they were not charge-sheeted. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the informant would submit that both of them have now been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. 7. It is true that two persons Mainpal and Manoj @ Raju have also been named in the FIR. It is admitted that they were not charge-sheeted. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the informant would submit that both of them have now been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. The Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny at this stage because the fact remains that there is one injured witness, who sustained fire injuries in the incident. He is Dixit. He named all the three applicants, as the persons, who fired at them. In fact, he assigned role to each of the applicants, as to who fired at whom. The Forensic Science Laboratory report, in fact, reveals that the cartridge cases were fired through the recovered country made pistols, although, with regard to one bullet, the Forensic Science Laboratory report could not give any definite opinion. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail applications deserve to be rejected. 11. The bail applications are rejected.