JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. praying that the accused petitioner against whom a case under section 307 IPC is being registered. ' 2. An application for bail was also moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur, who rejected the same on June 12, 1978. 3. The facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this bail application are that on May 30, 1978, Ramu said that there are rumours that Jodha tried to molest his own daughter and that Gyarsa was instrumental in spreading this rumour. It is on this account that Jodha and other members of the family started bearing ill will against the petitioner, and his members of the family. It is said that on May 30, 1978, at about 9 a. m. Birdha went to the house of Gyarsa with a muzzle loading gun and called him. When he came out he was fired at. On hearing the report of the gun fire Bahya, Lachhu, Malya, and Nanda reached there. Nanda gave a blow with Jeli on the muzzle loading gun which broke in to pieces. The accused was arrested on June 5, 1978 and was remanded to the judicial custody the following day. According to the medical report simple injuries were received by Gyarsa while the petitioner himself has received a number of injuries including grievous injuries. The contention of the court was also invited towards the statement of Gyarsa recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and it was stated that the gun was never aimed at the injured but it went off as a result of the scuffle which ensued. 4. Shri Khan learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail to the accused petitioner. 5. The injuries which have been received by Gyarsa are not of serious nature. The injuries are simple and superficial. At this stage it is neither expedient nor proper to express any opinion about the merits and demerits of the prosecution case. The only question for consideration is whether the accused petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think it to be unreasonable to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. The only question for consideration is whether the accused petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think it to be unreasonable to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 10000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur with an undertaking to appear before him as and when he is called upon to do so. The accused petitioner shall not in any way interfere with the prosecution evidence and shall present himself before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever he is called upon to do so. If at any time the accused misuses the trust placed on him it will be for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. *******