Judgment ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this court vide order dated 19. 07. 2005 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the statements of material witnesses in the trial court. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that now the statement of PW-1 Mazid Mohammed has been recorded in the trial court. He argues that the name of the present accused-petitioner has not been mentioned in First Information Report. The second report was lodged thereafter and in that report, his name has been appeared. No specific overt act has been assigned to the present accused-petitioner and only his presence has been shown at the place of occurrence. He has drawn my attention towards the statement of PW-1 Mazid Mohammed and states that he has said in his statement that after firing gun shot by one boy aged about 24-25, who was sitting behind accused-Azam on another motor cycle, all the accused shouted that Hameed Lala (deceased) should not be left alive and thereafter, they ran away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after firing gun shot, this overt act has only come against the present accused-petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he caused any injury by any weapon to the deceased. It is further submitted that petitioner is suffering from hemophilia which is a very serious sort of hereditary disease. Learned counsel prays that on this ground also, accusedpetitioner may be released on bail. Learned counsel has submitted medical reports of the accusedpetitioner. ( 3 ) IT is further stated by learned counsel that there is no likelihood of petitioners absconding or in any manner tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this second bail application and states that the present accused-petitioner came with some persons on three different motor cycles and after causing gun shot injury to the deceased Hameed Lala, they fled from the place of occurrence. He further states that two cartridge and one motor-cycle were recovered from the place of occurrence. Looking to the nature of offence, accused-petitioner may not be released on bail. ( 4 ) I have considered the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the challan-papers. He further states that two cartridge and one motor-cycle were recovered from the place of occurrence. Looking to the nature of offence, accused-petitioner may not be released on bail. ( 4 ) I have considered the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the challan-papers. It appears that first Information Report was lodged by Mohammed rafeeq in which the name of the present accusedpetitioner has not been appeared. Thereafter again, another report was lodged. The statement of lodger was also recorded and after investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges were framed against the present petitioner for offence under Section 148, 302/149 IPC. It appears from the material on record that the present accused-petitioner has not caused gun injury. He came on motor-cycle along with other accused-persons and after firing gun shot by one boy, they ran away from the place of occurrence. Except this, there is no allegation against the present petitioner in the statement of PW-1 Mazid Mohammed. I have also gone through the statements of other witnesses recorded during the investigation but no overt act has been assigned to the accusedpetitioner. It also appears from the medical report that petitioner is sick. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Mudassar Hussain @ Saini S/o abrar Hussain shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so