JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Samar Singh learned counsel for the applicant, learned AG.A. and Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi learned counsel for the complainant.
2. This application is filed by the applicant, Tarkeshwar Prasad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 107 of 2005, under Sections 307, 286, 504 and 506 and 376 I.P.C. P.S. Karchhana, District Allahabad.
3. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by one Sri Rajkumar at P.S. Karchhana, District Allahabad on 21.6.2005 at 6.30 a.m. against the applicant and three other co-accused. The distance of the police station was 15 km. from the place of the occurrence.
4. According to the prosecution version the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with their licensed weapons as rifle, gun and revolver came at the door of first informant and hurled abuses, when they were asked not to abuse, they fired by their respective weapons with the intention to commit the murder. Consequently, Manoj Kumar the brother of the first informant received injuries on his eye and other parts of the body. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Uma Shankar Gautam. The accused persons left the place of - occurrence after discharging the shot. The injured in serious condition was taken to the S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged.
5. From the perusal of the medical examination report of Manoj Kumar it shows that he has received 12 injuries caused by firearms. The injuries are on the vital part of the body also. The injuries were kept under observation and advised X-ray.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that if fact the injuries were caused by weapon of 12 bore and none of the injury was grievous in nature. The medical examination report shows that there is overwriting on the date of the medical examination report, because initially 22.6.2005 was written, but by overwriting its date was changed as 21.6.2005. It is further contended that there is no specific weapon shown in the hands of the applicant and there is no injury caused by rifle or revolver.
7. It is opposed by learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant that the condition of the injured has become serious due to the injuries received by him even he was not in a position to speak. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not permit the witnesses to give the evidence in the court. The alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light and there is not reason of false implication of the applicant. It has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that all the accused persons fired by their respective licensed weapon. The applicant is having licensed of 12 bore firearm and all the injuries were caused by 12 bore firearm.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.