VINOD PRASAD, J. Applicant Ram Chandra Yadav alias Phauji has applied for bail before this Court under Section 439 Cr. P. C. , after the same was rejected by Special Judge, SC/st Act, Allahabad on 24-8-2006, in Crime No. 175 of 05 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 302 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act, P. S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad. 2. The prosecution allegation against the applicant is that on the intervening night between 25/26-7- 2005 Suresh Yadav, who was the nephew of the present applicant Ram Chandra Yadav alias Phaujia, village Pradhan was murdered and his dead- body was found lying near the brick cline of Abrar. Hearing about the said murder, informant Mangal Singh alongwith his brother Pradeep Kumar, Jagdeep Kumar and son Dheeraj Kumar went there to see the dead-body of the deceased. There many people of the village were collected. It is alleged that the present applicant Ram Chandra Yadav alias Phauji alias Ram Dhani, Kulley Yadav, Jhhallar Yadav and Guddu Yadav, on seeing the informant Mangal Singh, his two brothers and son Dheeraj Kumar, abused and leveled the allegation against them that they had murdered Suresh Yadava. All the four persons caught hold of Pradeep Kumar and started belabouring him with lathi, danda and bricks. The informant Mangal Singh and his companions tried to save Pradeep, but they were also chased for being assaulted. The aforesaid four accused also belaboured Sundar Lal, the father of the informant, Smt. Jaimul Nishan w/o Late Nabbu. After the said assault the applicants make their escape good. Pradeep Kumar injured had received serious injuries and was lying on the northern side of Ram Lals field. The local police meanwhile arrived and transported the injured Pradeep Kumar to the Government Hospital but he died in the mid way. This incident is alleged to have taken place on 26-7-2005 at about at about 7 a. m. The informant got the FIR scribed through Rajendra Kumar Singh and lodged it at the Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad at 3. 10 p. m. that day as crime No. 175/05, under Section 323, 504, 506, 336,304 IPC, after covering a distance of 11 Km from his village. Autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased was performed on 27-7-2005 at 3. 10 p. m. that day as crime No. 175/05, under Section 323, 504, 506, 336,304 IPC, after covering a distance of 11 Km from his village. Autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased was performed on 27-7-2005 at 3. 30 p. m. and the deceased was found to have sustained following injuries: (1) Multiple abraded contusions all over body except both sales and palm. (2) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x scalp deep on left side on the head 6 cm. above the left ear. (3) Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. left side of head. (4) Incised wounds each measuring 2 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the front and the outer aspect of left leg. (5) Two incised wounds each measuring 1. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on the outer aspect of right leg. The cause of death was shown to be shock haemorrhage. 3. Injured Sundar Lal was medically examined on 26-7-2005 at 11. 20 p. m. in M. L. M. N Hospital Allahabad and following injuries were found on his body: (1) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. on dorsal aspect of right hand, 2-cm. below base of right little finger. (2) Contusion 10 cm. x 8 cm. on dorsal aspect of right hand, blue in colour. (3) Contusion 2 cm. x 8 cm. on left knee on left leg 12 cm above the left ankle joint blue in colour. (4) Contusion 12 cm. x 10 cm. on right knee joint below in colour. 4. According to the doctor all injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. 1 was found to be simple and for rest of the injuries, x-ray was advised. 5. On these facts the applicant has applied for his bail after its rejection by the lower Court as is mentioned above. 6. I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shiva Ji Srivastava on behalf of the applicant and learned AGA as well as Sri Deepak Dubey learned Counsel for the informant. Counter- affidavit filed by Sri Deepak Dubey and rejoinder affidavit filed by Sri Shiva Ji Srivastava are taken on record. 7. Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior Counsel contended that the prosecution case is absolutely false and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Counter- affidavit filed by Sri Deepak Dubey and rejoinder affidavit filed by Sri Shiva Ji Srivastava are taken on record. 7. Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior Counsel contended that the prosecution case is absolutely false and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the fact of the matter is that Suresh, who was nephew (Bhanja) of the present applicant, was murdered by Pradeep (the deceased) and a FIR was lodged against Pradeep, Jagdeep and Sonu by the present applicant Ram Chandra Yadava alias Phauji as crime No. 175/05, under Section 302 IPC, at P. S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad. The murder of Suresh had taken place on 25-7-2005 between 7 to 8 p. m. It is further contended that after the said FIR was lodged, Pradeep (the deceased) alongwith the informant and others persons went to see the corps of the deceased Suresh Kumar where he was assaulted by the villages as a result of which he sustained injuries which were simple in nature but unfortunately because of shock and haemorrhage he lost his life. Learned senior Counsel contended that to stop the applicant from giving evidence in murder case of his nephew (Bhanja) Suresh that he has been implicated falsely in the present case. He drew the attention of the Court to Annexure 9 of the affidavit, which is the FIR of the murder case of Suresh Yadav in which the present applicant is the informant and Pradeep, who is the deceased in the present case, is one of the accused. He also pointed out that post-mortem report of Suresh Yadav (Annexure 10) indicates that Suresh Yadav was strangulated to death. Learned senior Counsel further contended that the deceased Pradeep Kumar has sustained all the simple injuries and none of the injury is on his torso and no fracture was found beneath all his injuries. He further submitted that the post- mortem report of Pradeep Kumar indicates that he was given only some beating without there being any internal damage but unfortunately he died. He, therefore, submitted that neither intention to murder can be presumed for knowledge to cause death can be presumed on the facts of the present case and the offence, in any case, will not travel beyond the scope of Section 304-A IPC. He, therefore, submitted that neither intention to murder can be presumed for knowledge to cause death can be presumed on the facts of the present case and the offence, in any case, will not travel beyond the scope of Section 304-A IPC. He further submitted that in this case four persons are alleged to have assaulted the deceased but he had sustained only five injuries, out of which two injuries are on non-vital part of the body (leg), which are incised wounds below the knee, which cannot be caused by lathi. He further contended that multiple abraided contusions sustained by the deceased did not cause any internal damage. He also contended that post-mortem report does not indicate any specific haemorrhage and in fact it shows that the deceased died due to shock. He further contended that simple injuries, which were sustained by the deceased, are not indicative of intention or knowledge to murder. 8. Learned Counsel for the informant Sri Deepak Dubey on the other hand submitted that the applicant alongwith other three accused persons assaulted the deceased as a result of which he died. He further submitted that the applicant has got a criminal history as well. He narrated the criminal history of the applicant as Annexure CA 2. Learned Counsel for the informant further submitted that the deceased has died due to shock and haemorrhage and therefore, the applicant does not deserve bail. He further contended that the defence of the applicant is cooked up and cannot be believed. 9. Learned AGA also pointed out and adopted the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the informant and contended that it is day light incident and there is an injured witness also, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 10. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. 11. Some facts are admitted in this case and they are that the Bhanja of the present applicant namely, Suresh Yadav was murdered the previous night and in that case Pradeep (deceased of the present case) is an accused. Another aspect of the matter is that the present applicant is the informant in the murder case of his Bhanja Suresh Yadav alias Suresh Kumar. It is also admitted fact that the present incident had taken place because of the aforesaid murder of Suresh Yadav in which the deceased was an accused. Another aspect of the matter is that the present applicant is the informant in the murder case of his Bhanja Suresh Yadav alias Suresh Kumar. It is also admitted fact that the present incident had taken place because of the aforesaid murder of Suresh Yadav in which the deceased was an accused. It is also admitted fact that the FIR of the murder case of Suresh Yadav was registered as Crime No. 174/05 and the crime number of the present case is 175/05. It is also admitted fact that the deceased has not sustained any internal damage from the injuries caused to him. It is also admitted fact that before the murder of Suresh Yadav there was no enmity between the applicant and the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that the occurrence of the present case had taken place at about 7 a. m. in the morning but the FIR was lodged at 3. 10. p. m. , after a gap of 8 hours where as the distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence is about only 11 km. It is also admitted fact that when the police had reached on the spot to take the injured to the hospital no FIR was given to the Police at that time. It is also admitted fact that two of the injuries sustained by the deceased are on the leg and are incised wound for which there is no explanation and that the abraided contusions and the lacerated wound on the head did not cause any internal damage beneath them. It is also admitted fact that the applicant have criminal history but he has been acquitted in all the cases but for four cases of the year 1997 and 1999 which are pending against the applicant and which are under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 41/411 IPC, 394 IPC and one case 307 IPC. Except one case all the cases are of the year 1997 and the case under Section 307 IPC is of the year 1999. According to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant had been falsely implicated in all these four cases by the police and he has not been convicted in any of the case at all. 12. According to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant had been falsely implicated in all these four cases by the police and he has not been convicted in any of the case at all. 12. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and without going into the details of the case since the applicant is the informant of the murder case of his Bhanja which had taken place on the previous night, looking to the nature of injuries which have been sustained by the deceased without any internal damage and which are simple in nature and looking to the fact that four persons assaulted the deceased but he had sustained only 5 injuries of simple nature and two of the incised wounds remain unexplained that I consider it appropriate to release on the applicant on bail. 13. Let the applicant Ram Chandra Yadav alias Phauji be released on bail in Crime No. 175/05, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 and 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act, P. S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Allahabad. Bail application allowed. .