JUDGMENT G.Narendar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader. 2. The case of the de-facto complainant is that on 19.12.2019 at about 5:30 a.m. when she was proceeding towards the bus stop to take a bus and reach her place of duty, she found two unidentified persons sitting on a motorcycle and that when she reached them the pillion rider is alleged to have poured acid on the complainant's face and body and that she sustained burn injury. She felt a burning sensation and immediately shouted and rushed to her house which was nearby and that her husband shifted her to the hospital. On account of the attack she suffered injuries on her face, neck and chest. In this background, a complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 326(A) read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.0423/2019 registered by the respondent police. That pursuant to the complaint, the petitioner and the co-accused have been arrested on the very next day. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the injured and that the accused was well known to the complainant and despite the said fact the complainant has specifically described the attackers as unknown persons. He would submit that the police have falsely implicated the petitioner and that the petitioner is a Govt. servant employed as a driver with the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. That the petitioner has been in prison for the last seven months and there is every likelihood of the petitioner losing his job. 4. He would submit that the further statement dated 14.02.2020 has to be viewed with circumspection in view of the nature of injuries which is described by the treating doctor as a superficial injury. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that investigation is completed and charge sheet has already been filed and he would take the court through wound certificate issued by the treating hospital wherein under the column provisional diagnosis the same has been mentioned as "superficial burns". He would also point out the observations at the time of admission wherein it is recorded as "diet-mixed, appetite good and sleep is described as "sound". He would contend that the co-accused has also been released by the trial court. He would also point out the observations at the time of admission wherein it is recorded as "diet-mixed, appetite good and sleep is described as "sound". He would contend that the co-accused has also been released by the trial court. He would submit that in view of the fact that the injuries suffered are superficial burns and no serious injuries have been suffered and in the light of the fact that the complainant has described her own brother-in-law as an unknown person, further detention of the petitioner would become punitive nature and it amounts to pre-trial detention. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Govt. Pleader would vehemently oppose the grant of bail. He would submit that the treating hospital described the injuries as grievous in nature and would place the copy of the wound certificate issued by the hospital. On perusal of the same, the injuries are described as below:- 1) Chemical burn injury (due to acid) to right half of the face, neck, upper thorny, left breast, upper part of the face; and the extent of burn is treated as 2) approximately 15%. 6. It is fairly submitted by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader that presently the victim is out of danger and has been discharged from the hospital. 7. In the above facts and circumstances this court is of the opinion that the contention that the sister-in-law has failed to identify her own brother-in-law raises a doubt in the mind of the court. It is seen that the further statement was recorded after a gap of nearly two months i.e. on 14.02.2020. The medical records no where demonstrate that the complainant was disabled from speaking and the extent of burn is described as 15%. 8. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. It is further stated that the motive for the attack was that the accused who is a Driver in the same BMTC like his sisterin- law/de-facto complainant, did not approve of the fact of the de-facto complainant speaking with her co-workers. Even the motive appear to be a weak motive. If he did not approve he would have definitely told his wife who is none other than the younger sister of the de-facto complainant. Even the motive appear to be a weak motive. If he did not approve he would have definitely told his wife who is none other than the younger sister of the de-facto complainant. Further, the fact that the investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed, this court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail. On the contrary, if it is not allowed, there is every possibility that the detention could turn into a pre-trial punishment to the accused. There are no criminal antecedents to the accused and the accused is gainfully employed in the Govt. BMTC and hence, the chances of the petitioner fleeing are remote. Hence, the petition is allowed . Petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.0423/2019 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 326(A) read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and shall furnish a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence the witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidences nor shall petitioner attempt to contact the witnesses or attempt to influence the complainant. iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without the prior permission of the trial court except on official assignment or on account of duty that may be assigned to him by his employer. iv) In the event the petitioner violates the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the court for the revocation of this order. The observations made herein above are only for the limited purpose of considering the bail application and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the above observation and shall independently consider and dispose of the case on merits. Ordered accordingly.