1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail App. No. 1173/2008 (Krishna & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 08/04/2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr. Pradeep Shah for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the bail application filed by petitioner No.1 Krishna. The bail application filed by petitioner No.1 Krishna is therefore, dismissed as not pressed. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Hanuman and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and challan papers. I have carefully gone through the statement of Mukhram as also his injury report and report of Radiologist. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no injury has been caused by petitioner No.2 Hanuman to the deceased Indrajeet Singh. So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, there is allegation that he inflicted injury to Mukhram which is simple in nature on examination by the Radiologist. The injury report of Mukhram shows that he suffered a single injury i.e. lacerated wound by blunt object and on being examined by the Radiologist the injury was found to be simple in nature. 2 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the oral arguments advanced by both the parties, without commenting on the merit of the case, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner No.2 Hanuman on bail. Accordingly, this bail application filed by petitioner No.2 Hanuman under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Hanuman S/o Aad Ram be released on bail in FIR No. 358/2007 P.S. Rawatsar, district Hanumangarh, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. (H.R.PANWAR), J. RP