JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta learned Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
2. According to the prosecution case on 11.1.06 at about 8.00 P.M. the applicant along with co-accused Indrapal Singh, Satya Veer Singh and Sukh Veer Singh all armed with country made pistol except Sukh Veer Singh who was armed with licenced gun came to the door of the informant abused him and his son and extorted that they will not allow them to live. The aforesaid four accused persons fired upon the injured Vijay Veer and Jai Veer causing injuries to them. The F.I.R. was lodged the same day at about 21.15 P.M.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that F.I.R. is ante time because the scribe of the F.I.R. Suresh Pal in his statement has stated that has not gone to any where in the night but he has stated that the informant and Ors. went to the police station in the very night. No reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness because he has not stated that he is scribe of the F.I.R. Therefore the plea of the learned Counsel for the applicant does not hold good.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that the co-accused Sukh Veer Singh has not been charge sheeted which shows that the entire prosecution case is false. In this connection he has placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh and Anr. 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1776 wherein it was held that if the alibi of co-accused is accepted it indicates that the eye witnesses were capable of falsely implicating innocent persons. I could not gather why the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon this case law which is off the point. The ruling is not applicable. Firstly because it is off the point and secondly it relates to the trial and not to the bail. Besides that if the Investigating Officer has omitted the name of a co-accused from the charge sheet it does not mean that the complainant cannot be bring the said accused to face the trial even under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The co-accused persons cannot be get any benefit of that action of the Investigating Officer.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is not the day occurrence and there is no recital of light. The argument does not hold good firstly because the F.I.R. shows that there was burning fire at the place of occurrence and secondly the accused persons were already known to the informant and others and they had talked prior to assault.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that the injury reports of both the injured persons show that the injuries were multiple punctured wounds which may not be possible by fire arm. In this connection he has placed reliance on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence which shows that the punctured or stab wounds are produced by a long piercing or stabbing instrument, Regarding fire arm wound it has been opined that the injuries produced by the projectiles discharged from fire arms may present the characteristics of lacerated wounds. It is true that the observation of Modi's is regarded as authority on the subject but in the instant case there is a consistent oral evidence recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer coupled with the X-ray reports of the injuries of injured persons which show that small rounded Radio unpack shadow of metallic density were seen which is sufficient to prove that the injuries were caused by fire arm and not by any other weapon.
7. The applicant has been assigned the role of causing fire arm injuries to two injured persons by country made pistol along; with other accused persons. The injuries are on vital parts and grievous in nature. The allegations are serious. There is old enmity. No ground for bail. The bail application is rejected.