Ravindra Singh, J.- Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Sr. Advocate, as­sisted by Shri Dhirendra Kr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri'R.V. Pandey, learned Counsel for the complain­ant. 2. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Komal Tiwari with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 159 of 2011, under sections 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Chandauli district Chandauli. 3. The facts in brief of this case are that First Information Report has been lodged by Mahendra Tiwari on 6.5.2011 at 8.30 p.m. in respect of the incident alleg­edly occurred on 6.5.2011 at about 7 p.m. The applicant and three other co-accused are named in the First Information Report. It is alleged that on account of the old en­mity, the co-accused Dhananjay Tiwari armed with licensed rifle, co-accused Rinku alias Dharmendra Tiwari armed with Re­volver, co-accused Pintu alias Jitendra armed with country made pistol and the applicant armed with Lathi came at the house of first informant and they dis­charged the shots, consequently Arvind, Kshamakant and Santosh sustained inju­ries. The other injured Triveni and Tribhu-wan also sustained injuries. Due to indis­criminate firing done by the accused per­sons, fear and panic was created. The in­jured persons were taken to district Hospi­tal Chandauli but on the way to the Hospi­tal injured Arvind, injured Kshamakant and injured Santosh Tiwari succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter, the injured Triveni and Tribhuwan also went to the police station, thereafter they were brought to the Hospital. 4. According to the post-mortem ex­amination report of the deceased, Kshamakant Tiwari sustained three ante mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1 was fire wound over right lower back, the inju­ries No. (2) and (3) were contusions. Ac­cording to the post-mortem examination report of the deceased Santosh Tiwari, he sustained a fire wound of entry having it­self exit wound and one lacerated wound and the deceased, Arvind had sustained fire arm wound of entry having its exit wound and one lacerated wound. The in­jured Tribhuwan Tiwari has sustained two lacerated wounds, one abraded contusions and one contused swelling, the injured Triveni Tiwari had sustained one lacerated wound on left parietal region and a con­tused swelling on right side of face. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli who rejected the same on 25.7.2011. 5. The in­jured Tribhuwan Tiwari has sustained two lacerated wounds, one abraded contusions and one contused swelling, the injured Triveni Tiwari had sustained one lacerated wound on left parietal region and a con­tused swelling on right side of face. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli who rejected the same on 25.7.2011. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that according to the F.I.R itself, the applicant was armed with Lathi. It is specifically alleged that the co-accused discharged the shots by their fired arms. Consequently, the deceased persons sustained injuries. According to the statement of the injured persons also, the applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased but it has been specifically alleged that the applicant caused injury to the injured Tribhuwan Tiwari and Triveni.. The injuries sustained by them are not grievous in nature. The case of the appli­cant is distinguishable with the case of the other co-accused. 6. It is further contended that in the said incident, the co-accused Dharmendra Tiwari has also sustained injuries. He was medically examined on 8.5.2011 at 2.30 p.m. and he was brought by Sub-Inspector, Jai Prakash Yadav, who had sustained three abrasions and one Traumatic swell­ing. The injury sustained by co-accused Dharmendra Tiwari has not been ex­plained. In X ray report, there was fracture of Rt. Ulna of co-accused Dharmendra Ti­wari. It appears that first of all co-accused Dharmendra Tiwari was beaten by the first informant and others, in his defence, the injury was caused by accused persons and for lodging the cross F.I.R. the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chan­dauli, who rejected the same on 7.7.2011. The order dated 7.7.2011 has been set aside by another Bench of this Court on 24.8.2011 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13605 of 2011, with a direction that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall pass a fresh order. It can be said that the applicant has caused simple injury to the injured persons. 7. He is in jail since 9.5.2011. He may be released on bail. 8. In reply to the contention, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurance has taken place at about 7 p.m. on 6.5.2011. It can be said that the applicant has caused simple injury to the injured persons. 7. He is in jail since 9.5.2011. He may be released on bail. 8. In reply to the contention, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurance has taken place at about 7 p.m. on 6.5.2011. The F.I.R has been lodged promptly on 6.5.2011 at 8.30 p.m. The distance of police station was 7 k.m. from the alleged place of occur­rence. It is a case, in which, the applicant and other co-accused persons actively par­ticipated for committing the murder of three persons and causing injuries to two persons. The applicant was armed with lathi. It was specifically alleged that he has caused the injury to injured persons, who had sustained injury on the head also which were caused by hard and blunt ob­ject. The gravity of defence is too much. The applicant was having motive to com­mit the offence. In case, he is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence. 9. Considering the facts and circum­stances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case applicant and three other co-accused persons were named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report has been promptly lodged. The applicant was armed with lathi, other co-accused persons were armed with fire arms, it is a case, in which three persons have lost their lives. It is alleged that the other co-accused persons caused the gun shot injuries to the deceased persons. The specific allegation against the applicant is that he caused the injury to the injured per­sons, the injured Tribhuwan Tiwari had sus­tained five injuries, in which injury Nos. 1 and 2 were lacerated wound over Lt perital region of the head, the remaining three inju­ries were contusions and contused swelling. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and advised for X-ray. The injured Triveni Tiwari has sustained two injuries. Injury No. 1 was lacerated wound of present over Lt. perital region on the head, injury No. 2 was contused swelling of present over Rt side of face. The injury No. 2 was kept under ob­servation and advised for X-ray. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and advised for X-ray. The injured Triveni Tiwari has sustained two injuries. Injury No. 1 was lacerated wound of present over Lt. perital region on the head, injury No. 2 was contused swelling of present over Rt side of face. The injury No. 2 was kept under ob­servation and advised for X-ray. So for as the mention of the cross version is con­cerned, co-accused Dharmendra Tiwari had sustained only three abrasions and one con­tused swelling. He was medically examined after two days of the alleged incident. Ac­cording to the medical examination report, the duration of injuries was about 3 days old. The gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion about the merit of the case, the application is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is re­fused. 10. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. Application Dismissed.