- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi and Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri S. K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the FIR is delayed, it has been lodged on 31. 5. 2008 at 2. 00 p. m. in respect of the inci dent which had occurred on 30. 5. 2008 at about 11. 30 p. m. The distance of the police station was about 1 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. IT is alleged that at about 11. 30 pm. there was electric supply that is why the inured Vivek Chauhan was on walk. The applicant who was already in search of an opportunity, discharged the shot which hit the chest of the injured. Ac cording to the medical examination report, the injured has sustained only one lacer ated gun shot wound over front of the chest, blackening and tattooing was found, the injury was kept under observation, it referred to Surgeon of S. R. N. Hospital, Allahabad. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of the night, some unknown miscreants caused the injury who could not be identified due to ill will of the first informant the applicant has been falsely implicated. The injury sustained by the applicant was not dangerous to life be cause according to the X- ray report no bone fracture was found. There is no independ ent witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant is innocent, he is hav ing no criminal antecedent and the injured has sustained injuries which were simple in nature and he is in jail since 6. 6. 2008, there fore, the applicant may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. GA and learned Counsel for the complainant that applicant has caused injury on the vital part of the body which was caused from a very dosed range. The prosecution story is fully sup ported by medical evidence. There is no undue delay in lodging the FIR because the FIR has been lodged after providing the medical aid to the injured. The injury was found serious, the injured became uncon scious and the matter was referred to Surgeon. In case he is released on bail, shall tamper with the evidence, therefore", he may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circum stances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complainant and the allegation made against the applicant that he has caused gun shot in jury on the person of the injured which was on the chest and after considering the na ture of this injury and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is re jected. Application Rejected. .;