JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary and other relevant documents placed before me. 2. Learned counsel submits that the accused petitioner and complainant are family members. Initially case was registered against the petitioner for bailable offences but so as to make the case non-bailable, section 308 IPC was added lateron. The injured persons sustained no injuries on the vital part of the body. Thus, the accused petitioner may be granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail. 3. Learned PP opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the facts of the case the bail should be rejected.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, I deem it just and proper to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. In the result, this bail application us.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner namely; Shiv Lal s/o.Bhajan, in FIR No. 184/2008, at Police Station Bamanwas, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with the sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall make himself 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; 3. That the petitioner not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 4. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected. Bail application allowed. *******