JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 760 of 2013, u/s 326, 352 I.P.C., Police Station-Tilhar, District-Shahjahanpur. 2. Heard Sri D.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that because of family dispute the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and what has been done by him was as a result of extreme provocation. Contention is that bail may be granted on humanitarian ground as the applicant is in jail since 26.11.2013. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has brought the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim, who is the father of the applicant. The statement of the victim reveals that when the victim was coming back to his house, he found his son standing near the door who demanded his share of money and property saying that till he did not get the same he will not allow the victim to live peacefully. Thereafter the applicant threw acid on the victim. It was also stated by the victim that because of the injuries inflicted on him by acid he was unable to see properly by his eyes. The applicant was seen running away after throwing acid by some other witnesses also. Submission is that it is not a routine case but it is a heinous offence in which a son had attempted to cause grievous injury on his own father which violates all accepted sanctified norms of society. Contention is that there are some relationships which are so sacrosanct that nothing except faith and affection and complete trust signifies them. The sanctity of the relationship between father and son has been recognised throughout ages in all times, in all races and in all parts of the world without exception. When the debased proclivities of an outlaw violates such pious relationship, the social ramifications which follow are outrageous. The act in which the applicant has indulged himself is a heinous offence and also speaks about the cruelty displayed by him. When the debased proclivities of an outlaw violates such pious relationship, the social ramifications which follow are outrageous. The act in which the applicant has indulged himself is a heinous offence and also speaks about the cruelty displayed by him. Further submission is that for a delinquent of such nature who had no qualms or hesitation in burning his own father by acid, the period of detention cannot be said to be a soul criteria to release him on bail. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. 7. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. 9. However, it may be observed that if the trial of the case has already started, the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest in accordance with law. Bail Rejected.