JUDGMENT Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the prosecution story and set of F.I.R. and also bail rejection order. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. and the statement of the injured Smt. Roshan has been recorded at very late stage and is not admissible; that in fact the statement of injured Smt. Roshan was never recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. because she is accused in Case Crime No.501/2011 and is absconding and another F.I.R. has been lodged by Dilshad against the first informant and family members in which Smt. Roshan is also accused; that an F.I.R. in Case Crime No.34/2014 was also lodged by Munnu father of applicant against Feroz the son of first informant and others. It is also contended that no X-Ray report of injured is on record and co-accused Halender has been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15396 of 2014 vide order dated 14.5.2014 by this Court, a copy of which is filed as Annexure-10 and so the applicant is also entitled for bail. 3. The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that injury report shows one incised wound on the neck, measuring 14cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of neck just above the left clavicle, which is on vital part apart from one more incised would over shoulder and have been caused with an intention to cause death. In the statement of injured under section 161 Cr.P.C. it has been specifically stated that the injuries were caused by the applicant Faheem @ Fammu by razor (Ustera); that Dilshad, Halender and Ahsan were assigned with the role of catching hold only while the active role was assigned to the applicant which is totally different from Halender, so the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity, that the copies of F.I.R. of Case Crime No.501 of 2011 and the other allegedly lodged by Dilshad against the injured have not been filed by applicant in support of his argument while the false F.I.R. in Case Crime No.34 of 2014 has been subsequently lodged by father of applicant as a counter blast. 4. 4. Considering the arguments advanced by either party and totality of facts and circumstances as well as nature of injury and the role assigned to applicant in causing the injury at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Bail application is liable to be rejected. The application for bail is accordingly rejected.