RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This appli cation has been filed by the applicant Siraj Kafil alias Raja with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2006 under section 307 IPC P. S. Rasoolpur District Firozabad. 2. The FIR of this case has been lodged by Sri S. M. Riyaz Ali at P. S. Rasoolpur on 14. 6. 2006 at 12. 20 p. m. in re spect of. the incident which had occurred on 9. 6. 2006 at about 10. 00 p. m. , the distance of the police station was about 1-1/2 km from the alleged place of occurrence. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the injured Musarraf Ali was going to his house after closing the godown, he met with the applicant and two other co-accused persons near Husaini Chowk at about 8. 00 p. m. on 9. 6. 2006, all the accused persons were armed with the country made pistol. The applicant demanded the money as extortion, the injured said that its com plaint shall be made to his father and tried to escape from the alleged place of occur rence, it was exhorted by all the accused persons, thereafter the applicant caused gun shot injury on his chest, the alleged incident was witnessed by Haji Mauazzam Ali, S. M. Muzaffar Ali, Rahmat Salim alias Salman who came at the place of occur rence also. Thereafter the first informant and his family members gave information. The injured was brought to the District Hospital Firozabad from where he was re ferred to Agra for proper treatment, its in formation was given by one Salman son of the first informant to S. P. Firozabad through fax, the FIR of this case has been lodged after getting his complete informa tion from the injured when he became con scious. 4. According to the medical exami nation report the injured has sustained lac erated wounds, 1. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. depth not proved due to surgical reason on left lateral aspect of lower chest cum abdomen, in jured was kept under observation, the gen eral condition of the patient was very poor, in X-ray report elongated radio opaque shadow metallic piece in abdomen was found. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad who rejected the same on 23. 5. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad who rejected the same on 23. 5. 2007, being ag grieved from the order dated 23. 5. 2008 the present bail application has been filed by the applicant. 5. Heard Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Tej Pal and Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: - 1. That the alleged incident has taken place in a dark hour of night at about 10. 00 p. m. , the FIR is too much delayed about five days without having any plausible ex planation. 2. That during investigation the I. O. recorded the statement of the wit nesses, according to the statement of witness S. M. Muzaffar Ali, he also reached at the alleged place of occurrence, some quarrel has taken place and somebody has dis charged shots, which hit the in jured. He did not saw the applicant when he was firing, but according to the statement of fliyas the firing had taken place from both sides, but the shot discharged by the applicant hit the injured, the same statement was given by the witness Khursheed, Ashiq Ali and Firoz Ahmad but the I. O. made enquiry that he was told by some person that the shot discharged from the country made pistol which was kept by the injured himself and they have not seen the applicant causing injury on the person of the injured. Thereafter, the I. O. con verted the offence under sections 324 IPC and the applicant was re leased on bail by the Officer In- charge of the Police Station con cerned. The applicant has not mis used the liberty of bail granted by the Officer In-charge of the Police Station concerned. 3. That there is a cross version of the alleged incident, the cross FIR has been lodged by Qazi Kafiluddin against the injured and three other persons on 18. 6. 2006 at 10. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9. 6. 2006 at about 8. 30 p. m. alleging therein that the injuries were caused on the person of Mohd. Adnan, who was medi cally examined on 10. 6. 2006 at 10. 6. 2006 at 10. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9. 6. 2006 at about 8. 30 p. m. alleging therein that the injuries were caused on the person of Mohd. Adnan, who was medi cally examined on 10. 6. 2006 at 10. 40 p. m. at district Hospital Firo zabad. According to the medical examination report he had sus tained four injuries in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound 1. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. scalp deep on left side of head, injury No. 2 was lacerated wound on left side, injury Nos. 3 and 4 was abraded contusion on left right knees, Injuries were kept under observation and advised for X-ray, consequently it was found that it was caused by gun shot, The prosecution has not come with clean hands, no explanation of the injury of the injured Mohd. Adnan was given. The applicant was having no motive or invention to commit the alleged offence, the applicant is a peace loving person, he may be released on bail. 7. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that according to the FIR the applicant is the main accused, he caused gun shot injury on the chest with abdomen in which bullet was embedded, the injury was dangerous to life as it had damaged the internal organ of the body. The treatment of the injured was done in District Hospital Firozabad from where he was referred to S. N. Medi cal College, Agra from where he was ad vised for advance treatment and was brought to Sriram Hospital, Agra in a pre carious condition. The major operation of exploratory laparoscopy was performed. The statement of Dr. Naresh Chandra Gupta of S. N. Medical College was re corded on 5. 2. 2007 under section 161 Cr. P. C. who stated that the condition of the injured was serious. The statement of Dr. Anil Misra was recorded on the same day, who stated that if the operation was not conducted so soon, death of the injured would have occurred because there was possibility of spreading septic. He stated that abdominal cavity was filled with blood and faucal matter, both the intestines were cut at three places, the injured is still under treatment. Anil Misra was recorded on the same day, who stated that if the operation was not conducted so soon, death of the injured would have occurred because there was possibility of spreading septic. He stated that abdominal cavity was filled with blood and faucal matter, both the intestines were cut at three places, the injured is still under treatment. In the present case due to some political pressure I. O. was not doing proper investigation, investigation was transferred to PS. Ramgarh from P. S. Rasoolpur, thereafter, the charge sheet was submitted, the applicant was avoiding his arrest, he surrendered after issuing N. B. W. under section 82-83 Cr. P. C. he had filed applica tion before this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. against the submission of the charge sheet before the Court concerned but the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet was refused and he was directed to appear before the Court concerned within 30 days on 14. 3. 2008 in criminal misc. ap plication No. 4422 of 2008 despite this or der he did not surrender within one months but he surrender on 21. 5. 2008 when coercive steps was taken, so far as the cross version is concerned, according to the cross version also, the time of both the in cident is different, place of occurrence is also different, the cross FIR is too much delayed, it was lodged on 10. 6. 2008 in which charge sheet has been submitted under section 323 Cr. P. C. The applicant and other co-accused persons have success fully tempered the evidence and they are extending threat to witnesses, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tam per with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 8. Considering the facts and circum stances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the na ture of the of the injury caused by the ap plicant which was dangerous to life. The applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. 9. Accordingly this application is re jected. Application Rejected. .