JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. 1. This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 2-9-1985. 2. The prosecution story is contained in the first information-report (Annexure 2' to the affidavit filed in support of this application). According to the prosecution on 31st March, 1985 there was some altercation between the applicant and Nanhey Khan, the brother of the informant. At about 6 a. m. while Nanhey Khan was returning home, the applicant met him along with Suleman Khan and the latter caught hold of Nanhey Khan and the applicant gave knife-blows with the intention to kill him. The First Information Report was lodged without unusual delay for an offence under section 307 IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the State. 3. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that under the circumstances of the case as the injured Nanhey Khan has received three incised wound, the first was 4 cm x 2 cm at the root of left side neck, the second injury was 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the left side neck 1.5 cm away from injury no. 1 and the third injury was 3,5 cm x 2 cm on the lower margin of chest left side 6 cm below left nipple. The fourth injury was linear incised 10 cm on the front of lower part of right thigh and 5th was 2 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep on the lower 1/4 of front of left thigh while the 6th injury was abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on the lower part of front of left knee. IT was urged that injuries 1 and 2 were caused on the neck and the third injury was caused on the left side of chest but they were not dangerous to life and the intention of the applicant was not to cause death and that no offence under section 307 IPC was made out, rather it was an offence under section 324 IPC and the applicant was entitled to bail. 4. As this is a second bail application unless some new point has been made out after the dismissal of the first bail application there would be no justification for granting bail. In the instant case Annexure no. 2 is a copy of the case diary. Annexure no. 4. As this is a second bail application unless some new point has been made out after the dismissal of the first bail application there would be no justification for granting bail. In the instant case Annexure no. 2 is a copy of the case diary. Annexure no. 3 was a copy of the charge-sheet and Annexure no. 4 is a statement of Islam and Annexure no. 5 is a copy of the site-plan. These documents were not filed along with the first bail application but only injury report and the copy of the first information report were filed. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has urged that it was not a fit case for bail. 5. From the perusal of the injuries nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is clear that even though they were caused on the neck and the left side of the chest but they were not the injuries fatal to life rather they were injuries constituting an offence under section 324 IPC. In Rekha Mandal v. State of Behar, 1967 Cr. Appeal Reporters SC 108 the injuries were caused by pharsa, spear and lathi and were seventeen in number consisting of incised, punctured wounds and bruises. Out of the injuries eight were caused by Pharsa, three by spears and six were bruises, presumably caused by lathi and even though two of them were located on the neck and head but it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that none of them had either cut any blood vessel or injured bones and most of them were superfluous. The medical evidence did not disclose that any of the injuries were dangerous to life. It was held that the offence disclosed was not under section 307 IPC but only under section 324 IPC. 6. In Sheo Raj Singh v. State of U. P., 1980 ACrR 169 DB it was observed in paragraph no. 16 that merely because one or two persons have received their injuries on the vital part of their bodies it cannot necessarily be inferred that the intention of the accused was to cause their death. There was no evidence that the injuries received by these persons were dangerous to their lives and it was held that offence under section 307 IPC was not made out, rather at the best it can be an offence under section 324 IPC. There was no evidence that the injuries received by these persons were dangerous to their lives and it was held that offence under section 307 IPC was not made out, rather at the best it can be an offence under section 324 IPC. Under the facts and the circumstances of the present case it is clear that the injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 even though on vital parts were not shown to be dangerous to life and even none of the blood vessels was cut and no X-ray report was furnished on behalf of the State to indicate that what was the internal damage done by these injuries. Simply because the injuries were on the vital parts of the body it could not be assumed that they were dangerous to life. The prosecution may lead some positive evidence so as to make out an offence under section 307 IPC. But at this stage considering the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC, some of the extracts thereof having been filed along with this bail application, I am of the view that a case for bail has been made out. 7. Let the applicant involved in Crime No. 209 of 1985 under section 307, police station Kotwali, District Rampur, be released on bail on his executing personal bonds and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. Application allowed.