(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the accused applicant, Kule Raj, who is detained in Case Crime No.188 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504, 326, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. It is argued on behalf of the applicant regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him; that the alleged injury was said to have been caused by dandas, but, no injury was found, which could have been caused by blunt weapon and, as such, the applicant deserves bail. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. by contending that acid was poured on Zamidar Yadav, and if no contusion was found, it does not belie the prosecution case; that eyewitness account of incident is available and, as such, the applicant does not deserve bail. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties alongwith the grounds taken by the applicant in his bail application. Eyewitness account of the incident is available. The offence is of very serious nature. At the stage of disposal of the bail application, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case, is not required to be undertaken. The broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from the nature and severity of the offence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of offence, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence and broad spectrum of prosecution case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is, therefore, refused and the application for bail is rejected, accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and to decide the case preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.