JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the documents on record. 2. Mr. Naqvi brought to my notice that there was similar allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Moti. Both of them inflicted lathi blow on the leg of injured Bishni. Leaned Sessions Judge has granted bail in case of co-accused Moti, while he has rejected the bail application of petitioner u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. Learned PP has not disputed this fact that the allegation and overt act of co-accused and petitioner is similar. When the similar allegations are against the petitioner and co-accused Moti. It is surprised how learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to co-accused Moti while rejected the bail application of petitioner. When the bail application of co-accused Moti has been granted, there is no justification to deny bail to petitioner. 3. Taking a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer of Police Station Ravajna Doongar in FIR No.60/96 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Rameshwar S/o Bajranga he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, to the satisfaction of SHO concerned, on the following conditions: 1. that the petitioner shall make himself/themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any Police Officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. *******