S. K. VERMA, J. This is a second bail application. The first was rejected by me. Earlier X-ray report were not available and on the basis of the reports of X-ray it has been argued that the injuries are simple. Several decisions have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant to support the state ments that where injuries are simple the case under Section 307, I. P. C. is not made out. 2. Mention may be made of State of U. P. v. Amarnath, 1992 (29) ACC 490 (DB), Babu and others v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACC 616 ; Kundan Singh v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACC 393 ; Asharfi v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACrc 47 ; Lukman v. State, 1986 ACC 141 and Nepal Singh v. State, 1987 ACR 576. 3. In all these decisions application of Section 307, IPC was considered. I have gone through these decisions. It appears that where a victim was helpless and if the accused wanted he could have reached near him and done him to death immediately but on the contrary the accused ran away, there was no intention to kill. Similarly where injuries on the vital part of the body were not shown to be dangerous to life and had not cut either any blood vessel or injured the bones, the offence disclosed was not under Section 307, IPC, but only under Section 324, IPC. 4. Again where there was no evidence that injuries cumulatively or individually were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and there was merely shouting for killing it was not enough for drawing inference that the assailants have intention to cause death. 5. Again where shots were not repeated and the injuries caused were simple in nature intention to kill could not be inferred. 6. In one of these decisions Asharfi v. State of U. P. (supra) it was opined that it is always more desirable to draw inference from the injuries caused. 7. A reading of Section 307, I. P. C. would be useful, which is as follows ;- "307. 6. In one of these decisions Asharfi v. State of U. P. (supra) it was opined that it is always more desirable to draw inference from the injuries caused. 7. A reading of Section 307, I. P. C. would be useful, which is as follows ;- "307. Attempt lo murder.-Whoever does any act with such inten tion or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine ; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. It is thus apparent that even if there is no injury and no hurt offence under Section 307, IPC can be made out if the act has been done with such intention or such knowledge and under such circumstances that, by that act death can be caused. Illustrations (c) to Section 307, IPC reads as follows : " (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has com mitted the offence defined in this section and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. " 9. Illustration clearly demonstrates that injury should not be the only guide but the intention or knowledge or circumstances should be the guide in forming an opinion as to whether offence under Section 307, IPG is made out. In the present case the X-ray report shows that one of the injured out of the two namely, Nand Kishore has a radio open foreign body inside his right orbital region. The Injury report of Nand Kishore indicates that there were two punctured wounds on the right eye. Injuries of Ram Kishore show multiple gun shot wounds on right upper arm and multiple gun shot wound on right side chest. There are allegations that the applicant and co-accused not only expressed their intention to kill the victims but they also fired from their guns in furtherance of their intention. Injuries of Ram Kishore show multiple gun shot wounds on right upper arm and multiple gun shot wound on right side chest. There are allegations that the applicant and co-accused not only expressed their intention to kill the victims but they also fired from their guns in furtherance of their intention. It can only be ascertained during the trial as to whether the assailants had opportunity to repeat their firing or not. 10. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case I find it not a fit case for bail so far as the applicant Rakesh Kumar is concern ed. The application is, therefore, rejected. Application rejected. .