Judgment S.R. Waghmare, J.;- 1. By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. applicants Deenu @ Deena and Manjriya have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No. 122/12 registered by police station Aambua, Alirajpur for offence under Sections 307, 451 & 506/34 of the IPC. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the matter. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that single blow has been struck on the vital part of the body to complainant Surmabai by the applicant No. 1 Deenu. Counsel submitted that injury sustained by the complainant was not grievous in nature. Moreover, Counsel stated that the applicants are young persons of 27 & 25 years of age. Counsel submitted that challan has now been put up, investigation is over and nothing more remains against the applicants. Hence Counsel prayed for grant of bail since they have been arrested on 11.08.2012. 2. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicants. Counsel submitted that there are allegation by injured witness that applicant No. 1 Deenu had assaulted the complainant Surmabai by knife and the injury was dangerous to life. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. At this juncture, Counsel for the applicants submits that he does not wish to press this application on behalf of the applicant No. 1 Deenu. He, however, craves liberty of this Court to file a fresh application after injured complainant Surmabai has been examined. 4. Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State. 5. The application on his behalf is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. However, liberty as prayed for is granted to the applicant No. 1 Deenu. 6. On considering the application on behalf of the applicant No. 2 Manjriya alone, above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and fact that no specific overt act has been ascribed to the present applicant, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is, therefore, allowed. 7. The application is, therefore, allowed. 7. However, stringent measures need to be imposed, therefore, it is ordered that the applicant No. 2 Manjriya be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial. 8. By way of abundant caution, it is further directed that he shall also mark his presence in the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon during pendency of the trial. Any default in attendance in Court and marking presence in the concerned police station, would result in cancellation of bail granted by this Court thereby entitling the police to take the applicant in custody immediately. 9. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr. P.C. Cc. as per rules.