JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 416 of 2014, u/s 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Bewar, District-Mainpuri. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the victim had been initially treated in district hospital and from there he was referred to Medical College, Agra. Submission is that the reference slip indicates that the victim was handed over to one Sushil Kumar at the time of discharge. Further submission is that according to the prosecution story the injured was taken to the police station and the hospital not by Sushil Kumar but by the first informant Prevendra Singh Yadav with the help of one Diwan Singh. Contention is that in this background ordinarily the name of either of these two people ought to have been there in the reference slip of Medical College, Agra. Submission is that this circumstance indicates that probably the incident had taken place at a different place and the injured was brought by different persons to the hospital. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation the blood stained soil was not collected by the investigating officer and therefore, the place of incident cannot be fixed. It was also submitted that the victim and the complainant both are having criminal antecedents and in that views of the matter also there may have been a number of enemies, who could have committed the incident. 5. Learned A.G.A. and Sri Singh have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after the injured was taken to the hospital, several people had gathered in the hospital, who were well-wishers and relatives who had come to know about the incident. It was not at all necessary that the person, who had brought the victim to the hospital for the first time, must also be the same person, to have taken the charge of the victim at the time of being referred to a higher medical centre or hospital. Such person can be anybody else and therefore, if the name of Sushil Kumar is mentioned in the reference slip, it is not at all any contradiction and does not discredit the prosecution story at all in any manner whatsoever. Such person can be anybody else and therefore, if the name of Sushil Kumar is mentioned in the reference slip, it is not at all any contradiction and does not discredit the prosecution story at all in any manner whatsoever. The argument in this regard raised by the defence is misconceived. Further submission is that so far as the other aspects of the investigation is concerned, they are the matters of appreciation of evidence which can be done more adequately during the course of trial. It has also been submitted that if the victim and the applicant were having bad antecedents that does not entitle anybody to shoot them down. The statement of the victim categorically implicates that the applicant is the author of the firearm wound received by him, which is on the most vital part of the body abdomen. A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the Court to the medical papers indicating that there was also exit wound apart from entry wound. Submission is that chest and abdomen are the most vital parts of the body and survival of the victim is more an act of providence while the applicant had done all which he could do in order to cause the death of the victim. 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. Bail Application Rejected.