JUDGMENT Anil Verma, J. - This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 12.12.2022 in connection with Crime No.538/2022 registered at Police Station-Manpur, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 read with Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. As per prosecution story, on 07.11.2022 at about 06:30 PM, informant Jitendra Lodged an FIR by stating that he alongwith his brother Govind went to milk Dairy of accused Arun and Sandeep. On the previous land dispute, both have abused to Govind, at that time, co-accused Sachin, Devendra and Mahipal came there and assaulted to Govind, Sachin has gave sword blow on his left leg, Devendra has inflicted knife injury on his head, Arun caused injury on his left hand, accused Sandeep has inflicted lathi blow on his back and hand. They have caused multiple injuries to Govind. Accordingly, offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in custody since 12.12.2022. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Allegation attributed against present applicant is only that he caused injury to Govind by means of lathi, but same injury was not corroborated by the medical evidence. Cross FIR has also been lodged against the complainant party bearing Crime No.569/2022 under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Applicant is permanent resident of Indore district. Hence, he prays that applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that cross FIR has been lodged after 12 days of incident and name of the present applicant mentioned in the FIR. One criminal antecedent has been found against the present applicant. Hence, he does not deserve for bail 5. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. One criminal antecedent has been found against the present applicant. Hence, he does not deserve for bail 5. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that present applicant is not the main accused, allegation levelled against the present applicant is only that at the time of incident he was carrying a lathi and has caused injuries to Govind; although one offence was earlier registered against the present applicant, in that case, he has been acquitted by the trail Court, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail. 6. Therefore, the application is allowed. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.