Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that no injury has been caused by the petitioner on vital part of the body of the injured. It is also contended that earlier a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to co-accused Sujiya @ Suja Ram S/o Oakha Ram on the ground that there was no injury upon vital part of the body of injured assigned to Sujiya. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the case of present petitioner. is not distinguishable to the case of Sujiya because as per the allegation of injured himself, the injury caused to the petitioner is upon leg.
(3.) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.;