The petitioner has brought this application under section 497 (5) read with sections 439 and 561-A, Cr. P. C. For cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 vide order dated 11th July, 1979, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on the ground that the order itself is not a speaking judgment and appears to have been passed as a matter of routine. He further contends that the petitioner is an injured person, who received eight injuries, out of which two are grievous and as such the case for bail is strictly governed by subsection (1) of sec--tion 497, Cr. P. C. Therefore in view of that prohibitory clause respondent No. 1 should not have been released on bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as, the learned counsel for the State along with relevant record. Un--doubtedly the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, while granting the bail to respondent No. 1 is not a speaking order. It con--sists of four lines and the Additional Sessions Judge neither narrated the facts nor mentioned the reasons warranting the release of respondent' No. 1 on bail in the impugned order. He has not applied his mind and passed an order without balancing and weighing the facts of the case in the scale of justice. However in order to save the parties from further unnecessary litigation. I myself carefully enquired into the matter with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt the petitioner sustained eight injuries out of which injuries Nos. 1 and 5 are grievous. According to F.I.R. Both these grievous inju--ries were inflicted by Bashir accused. The rest of the injuries are simple in nature and cannot be said with certainty that out of the two accused who inflicted such injuries, which is yet to be decided by the trial Court. Moreover the learned counsel for the State admits that after making a thorough inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned found the respondent No. 1 as an innocent person and hence he was put in column No. 2 of the challan leaving him at the mercy- of the Court. This aspect of the case also requires further probe into the matter. In view of the facts mentioned above I am firmly of this opinion that the case of respondent No. 1 clearly falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. And as such requires a further enquiry. 1, therefore, find no fault on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge in releasing respondent No. 1, the accused yon bail. I, therefore, dismiss this petition accordingly.