Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vivekanand Rai, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. For the State of U.P. This application has been filed by the applicant Banti with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 30 of 2007 under sections 326 I.P.C. P.S. High way district Mathura.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the pres ent case the F.I.R. is delayed by 23 days, it has been lodged on 28.1.2007 at 2.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5.1.2007 at 8.00 p.m. there is no satisfac tory explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R., the naming of the applicant is after thought, it is also surprising that the al leged injured Reshma was medically exam ined on 28.1.2007 at 4.15 p.m. there is too much delay in her medical examination, the medical examination shows that all the four injuries were septic wounds, which shows that the name of the applicant is af ter thought and the alleged occurrence has not taken place as alleged by the prosecu tion, it has taken place in some other man ner in the dark hours of night. It is also submitted that some un known person had poured acid in the dark hours of night who could not be identified that is why the F.I.R. was not properly lodged. The applicant is innocent he is not involved in other cases. The applicant is in jail since 28.1.2007. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case acid has been poured by the applicant on the person of the injured Reshma Kumari who has sustained injuries by acid, her treatment was going on in a private hospital, The prosecution story is fully supported by the injured witnesses and some other eye-witnesses namely Mukesh, Km. Munni, Mohd. Latif, Dinesh Pandit Hardev Chaturvedi who have also supported the prosecution story, the life of a young girl has been spoiled by the appli cant by way of pouring acid due to which her face has been disfigured. The gravity of the offence is too much, there is no reason of his false implication of the applicant, there fore, the applicant may be released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and from the pe rusal of the record, it appears that pouring acid on the person of the injured is against the applicant, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appli cant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. However, considering the sub mission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the trial of the case is in progress, it is directed that the proceeding of the above mentioned case shall be ex pedited on day-to-day basis, without giv ing unnecessary adjournment to either of the side. With the above direction this applica tion is finally disposed of. Application Rejected.;