JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra - Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of CR No.18/17, registered at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore for offence under Sections 307, 353, 332/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act while keeping investigation pending against the complainant. 2. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet in the matter for aforesaid offences against petitioner and other accused Gopilal. 3. The first bail application filed on behalf of petitioner bearing No.7985/17 was dismissed as not pressed on 6 th of October 2017. 4. Arguing on this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.L. Bishnoi, that entire prosecution story is full of concoctions and fabrications. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel contends that even while filing charge-sheet in the matter, police has kept investigation pending against complainant Prakash Bishnoi while expressing suspicion about the injuries suffered by him. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the police statements of alleged ocular witnesses; Manpreet Singh, Bhutte Khan and Hari Ram are conspicuously silent about use of firearm by the petitioner to cause injury to complainant Prakash Bishnoi. It is further argued by learned counsel that prosecution case is supported by complainant alone and his credentials are also under serious clouds inasmuch as he himself is involved in many criminal cases of serious offences including offence under the NDPS Act. While referring to police statement of Pancha Ram, it is submitted by learned counsel that a cumulative reading of the entire statement clearly and unequivocally reveals serious inconsistencies and contradictions inasmuch as the witness says that he has not seen firearm injury caused to the complainant. Learned counsel has also argued that recovery of firearm is from co-accused Gopilal and therefore in that background taking into account prolonged custody of the petitioner since 9 th of July 2017, his second bail application merits favourable consideration. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed second bail application of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that statements of complainant Prakash Bishnoi are sufficient to indicate involvement of the petitioner in causing him firearm injury. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that 10 other cases for various offences are pending against the petitioner. 6. Mr. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed second bail application of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that statements of complainant Prakash Bishnoi are sufficient to indicate involvement of the petitioner in causing him firearm injury. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that 10 other cases for various offences are pending against the petitioner. 6. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that police statements of Pancha Ram are sufficient to show involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that though recovery of firearm is from Gopilal but as per his version the same was handed over to him by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the police statement of complainant wherein he has castigated the petitioner for using firearm in causing injury to him. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel contends that after rejection of first bail application, there is no change much less substantial change in the circumstances. 7. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. 8. In the overall scenario, it can be unhesitatingly inferred that complainant and petitioner are inimical to each other. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is also discernible that the scuffle took place because of subsisting serious acrimony between them. After a close scrutiny of the materials available on record, suspicion about the injury suffered by complainant is also prima facie visible for the simple reason that police has kept investigation pending against him under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The latest report submitted by the Public Prosecutor dated 22 nd of February 2018 is also containing the said recital. 9. While it is true that petitioner is involved in many other criminal cases but then checkered history of the complainant showing his involvement in various serious offences including offences under the NDPS Act cannot be overlooked by the Court. It is also noteworthy that co-accused Gopilal has been enlarged on bail by this Court while considering his second bail application on 27 th of October 2017. It is also noteworthy that co-accused Gopilal has been enlarged on bail by this Court while considering his second bail application on 27 th of October 2017. Therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the latest report of the investigating agency, showing pending investigation against the complainant, more particularly, while expressing suspicion about the injuries suffered by him, I feel persuaded for favourable disposition of this second bail application. It is noteworthy that petitioner is in custody since 9 th of July 2017 and the injury suffered by the complainant is simple in nature, also sufficiently paves the way for grant of bail. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, while refraining to make any comment on merit, I feel inclined to accept this bail application. Accordingly, it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Bhajan Lal Son of Shri Kesa Ram, arrested in connection with CR No.18/17, registered at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.