JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the FIR and the injury reports. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the story narrated in the FIR is concocted one and from the facts itself the story is not probable story. It is also contended that In the FIR itself, the complainant himself has categorically stated that there Is no enmity in between the applicant and the complainant. It is further contended that during the Medical examination, no definite opinion regarding the nature of injuries was given. It seems that the Doctor was not sure regarding the nature of injuries and after 12 days, the Medical Board again examined the complainant and found the injuries to be serious and dangerous to life. It is further contended by that injured was discharged from the hospital within three days. Therefore, the contention with regard to the seriousness of the injuries cannot be presumed. He has also invited the attention of the Court that as per the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edition), an injury is grievous or dangerous only if the injured man is in severe bodily pain, or is unable to follow is/her ordinary pursuits. It is further contended that before designating an injury to be dangerous to life, the doctor should be sure regarding the same. It is also contended that on the point of age of injury, it is stated when a tooth has been knocked out, bleeding from its socket stops in about 24 hours but sometimes, on probating it, the blood may come out even after two or three days. The cavity of the socket usually fills up in seven to ten days and the alveolar process becomes quite smooth after 14 days. 3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts narrated in the FIR in which there is no seriousness as per the complainant himself at the time of occurrence. Without expressing any opinion, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. 4. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. 3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts narrated in the FIR in which there is no seriousness as per the complainant himself at the time of occurrence. Without expressing any opinion, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. 4. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Vikas S/o Late Rajendra Bishnoi shall be released on bail (in FIR No. 360/05 P.S. Sangaria District Hanumangarh) provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishes two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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 trial.Bail allowed. *******