VIRENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) It has been contend on behalf of the applicant that as per medical report, Exhibit Annexure-4 to the affidavit annexed with the bail, the nature of the injuries was opined to be simple. It was opined to have been caused by blunt and hard object, hence, the case did not fall within the ambit of Section 326 I.P.C. Besides, it has been submitted that NCR was lodged by the applicant prior to the present F.I.R. i.e. on 05.02.2016 about the present incident, thus there are cross versions and at this stage it cannot be said that to who was the aggressor. It has further been stated that the accused is in jail since 29.05.2016 with no criminal history to his credit. Charges have been framed against the accused. There is previous enmity about immovable property between the parties. He has falsely been implicated and is entitled to bail.

(3.) I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the informant.