BHANWAR SINGH, J. Heard Mr. V. K. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Ranjana Bajpai, learned A. P. P. 2. The accused-applicant Mohammad Ali alias Lala is said to have fired at the informant Abul Hasans son of Sayeed Ahmad at 8. 30 p. m. on 22. 10. 2002. According to the prosecution story, it was a case of single shot having been fired by Mohammad Ali alias Lala, the applicant but the autopsy report appears to indicate that the deceased suffered as many as four injuries - all caused by fire-arm. The injuries 3 and 4 might have been caused by single shot but beside one abrasion, there is still one more fire-arm lacerated wound which has not been explained by Abul Hasan in his counter-affidavit as to how it was suffered by the deceased when only single shot was fired. Both the lacerated wounds Nos. 2 and 3 have blackening and injury No. 3 even tattooing. Both these injuries would have been suffered, if fired from a close range and as said above, two shots were required for their being sustained. 3. The enmity between the applicant and the informant has also been conceded by Abul Hasan. As regards his criminal history, Abul Hasan has explained that he has already been acquitted in a Crime Case No. 1354 of 1992. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the prosecution case is that Sayeed was fired when he was trying to flee from the site of occurrence. In that eventuality, the injuries would have been caused from the back-side and not from the front. As supplemented further by the applicants counsel, the two-fold improbability, i. e. more than one fire-arm injuries including lacerated wounds having been caused by a single shot and secondly single shot sustained on his front chest while fleeing creates a suspicion on the genuineness of the prosecution case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that it was an occurrence which took place in the darkness of night and no source of light has been disclosed. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that it was an occurrence which took place in the darkness of night and no source of light has been disclosed. 6. Further, it has been alleged that there was a long drawn enmity between the informant and the applicant on account of which the applicant was once more prosecuted and tried under Section 324 and several other sections in the Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1994 and the case against him was that he had inflicted injuries to Sayeed (deceased) but this very informant, namely Abul Hasan, stated on oath that he had involved the present accused in that case on the basis of the information conveyed to him by others. He conceded that he. had not seen the occurrence. The applicant was acquitted in that case. A copy of the acquittal order is Annexure RA-1 on record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out a significant inconsistency that according to the prosecution story as envisaged in the First Information Report, the deceased fell on one side of the road but in the site-plan, his dead body was found on the bank of canal, i. e. at considerable distance. 8. Also it has been pointed out that Sayeed Ahmad was a pillion rider on the scooter of Mobin Ahmad and the assailants allegedly did not allow Sayeed to flee away, yet Mobin did not suffer any injury at all. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has assured that the applicant, if released on bail will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Considering all the aspects of the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case so as not to cause any prejudice to the prosecution story, I am of the opinion that the accused- applicant deserves to be released on bail. 11. Let him, therefore, be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. Bail granted. .