JUDGMENT
Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Umesh Shankar learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant Hariom has filed this application with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 328 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 326, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Kashi Ram 17.3.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. In respect of incident which had occurred on 17.3.2005 at about 1.00 p.m.
4. According to the prosecution version the applicant is son-in-law of the first informant. The applicant was demanding the dowry and to fulfill the demand of dowry he was subjecting his wife to cruelty and he was demanding the salary of the first informant in each month, but due to fear the first informant was fulfilling the demand of the applicant but on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 17.3.2005 at about 1.00 p.m. the applicant came at the house of first informant and demanded the money and extended the threat that in case the money is not given he will commit the murder of the first informant. The first informant replied that he was meeting the family expenses by his salary ; therefore, the applicant used knife blows. Consequently, the first informant received injury on his face. On shrieks of the first informant some persons of the locality came there and life of the first informant could be saved by them and the applicant left the place of the occurrence after extending threats. The first informant was medically examined on 17.3.2005 at 3.00 p.m. He has received one incised wound on the lower lip. The injury was grievous in nature.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not caused any injury to his wife. The allegation against him is that he caused injury on the person of his father-in-law and there was no demand of dowry. The wife of the the applicant is living at his house. The applicant is agriculturist. He is not in a position to maintain motorcycle. The first informant has received injuries in some other manner , but due to strained relation the applicant was falsely implicated. He is in jail since 23.4.2005.
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant is main accused, who caused injury on the person of his father-in-law, because he could not fulfill the demand raised by the applicant and there is no reason of his false implication and the affidavit filed by Smt Asha Devi wife of the applicant was under coercion because she was not eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the applicant is remained in jail for a very short period, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.