ORDER : S.H. VORA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.K Dave for the complainant, learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D Nanavati appearing with Mr. Y.N Nanavati for the applicant and learned A.P.P Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent - State. 2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R being C.R No. I-06 of 2017 registered with Muli police station, District: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the G.P Act. 3. Briefly stated, it is submitted by the complainant that on 30.01.2017 at around 11:00 am., when he was going to his hotel, he met his uncle - Mr. Sangrambhai Nagarbhai, who was going to the agricultural field of his other uncle namely, Mr. Jodhabhai. It is alleged that when the first informant reached to the field of his uncle along with other relatives, his uncle, namely, Mr. Jodhabhai explained other relatives that nearby the field, the present applicant and other co-accused persons install windmills by digging that site after blasting that area with explosives, due to that, the bore-well in the field of the complainant's uncle might get buried and hence, they went to inform them at the site to carry out the blast with lower density and thereafter, there was an altercation between both the groups and one Mr. Champrajbhai Aanakbhai took out a gun and fired at the first informant on his left leg and thereafter, Mr. Rajubhai Suringbhai Kathi, Mr. Udaybhai and Mr. Dinkubhai Shailu respectively pulled out gun and started firing by which, Mr. Jodhabhai was hit by one bullet and his son Mr. Kanabhai Jodhabhai was also hit by a bullet and it is also alleged that there were several other unknown persons, who carried pipes and farsi and attacked them. 4. Learned advocate Mr. D.K Dave for the complainant would contend that on account of applicant's brother being hold the post of P.S.I, the weapon used in the incident in question was not recovered/discovered and for that purpose, reliance has been placed on one F.I.R being C.R No. II-3062 of 2017 registered under the provisions of the Arms Act. It is submitted at bar that two persons, namely, Mr. Kanabhai and Mr. It is submitted at bar that two persons, namely, Mr. Kanabhai and Mr. Hirabhai are the eye-witnesses of the incident in question. 5. Apart from it, the learned A.P.P has drawn attention of the Court to the effect that the applicant is facing some other three offences wherein, the weapon has been used. 6. Considering the submissions made at bar, it appears that there is a cross-complaint and, therefore, there are allegations/counter allegations as to aggression; no weapon either revolver/tamancha or of any sort is recovered/discovered till date; no further investigation with regard to the weapon recovered from the applicant's brother pursuant to F.I.R registered with Muli police station is on record of the Investigating Agency and the complainant, in his first version implicated one Mr. Udaybhai, allegedly fired one weapon but, in his subsequent statement, he gave clean chit to said Mr. Udaybhai. Therefore, present application deserves consideration. 7. So far as submission made at bar by the learned A.P.P that past antecedents may be considered while considering the bail application cannot be accepted because the evidence/materials placed on record is weak in its nature to refuse the bail with regard to the offence in question. 8. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R No. I-06 of 2017 registered with Muli police station, District: Surendranagar on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [d] not enter into the limits of Muli Taluka for six months except for the purpose of investigation or to attend the Court proceedings; [e] appear before the Investigation Officer concerned, as and when required for investigation purpose and attend Court concerned regularly. [f] furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the I.O concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned; 9. [f] furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the I.O concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned; 9. The competent authority will release the applicant only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.