Aditya Nath Mittal, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. As per prosecution story, the father of the informant was sitting at his door. At about 06:30 P.M., the applicant along with his wife, son and son-in-law came on the spot and caused serious injuries on the head due to which he was badly injured. Initially, the first information report was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. but subsequently to the death of the injured on 28.07.2012, the case was converted into Section 304 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the first information report, no weapon has been attributed to any of the accused persons. In the medical paper of Swasthya Kendra Itwa, the injury has been shown as accidental. In the postmortem report three lacerated wounds have been found and the Doctor has opined that the deceased had died due to head injury. The applicant has not caused the said injury by which the deceased has died. It has also been submitted that in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., lathi has been assigned to the applicant. The informant has not received any injury, therefore, his presence is doubtful. It has also been submitted that the wife of the applicant has been given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, looking into the age of the applicant, he should also be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the applicant was the author of the crime and he had came along with his wife, son, son-in-law and has caused serious injuries to the deceased. 5. It has also been submitted that the application for bail of Rangi Lal @ Pandit who is the son-in-law of the deceased has been rejected by another Bench of this Court by order dated 13.02.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31817 of 2012. 6. The applicant is named in first information report and there are head injuries on the body of the deceased. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the parcha of Swasthya Kendra Itwa in which accidental injury has been mentioned, is not a properly conducted medical examination. Bail Application No. 31817 of 2012. 6. The applicant is named in first information report and there are head injuries on the body of the deceased. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the parcha of Swasthya Kendra Itwa in which accidental injury has been mentioned, is not a properly conducted medical examination. It appears to be a paper of primary treatment. The deceased has been properly examined on the same day at 10:10 P.M. in which three injuries have been found. In the postmortem report also these injuries are corroborated. The applicant appears to be the author of the crime due to which the father of the informant has died. At this stage, I do not find any reason that the applicant has been falsely implicated. 7. For the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. The application for bail of Jhinkan Giri, in Crime Case No. 558 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Itwa, District Siddharthnagar is hereby rejected. _____________