1. ' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was arrested on 25-9-2004 and it has been alleged that the applicant was arrested on the spot whereas the incident took place on 24-9-2004 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 25-9-2004. He submits that on account of dispute with the complainant, who was his employer, the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant was asking for his six month's salary, which was refused, and the employer gave the applicant beating and got him arrested from his poultry farm. The applicant is being prosecuted under sections 395/511, P.P.C. The learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that the application has been arrested on the spot.
2. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the record. The applicant has been arrested and is in judicial custody and is not required for investigation purpose. Even the charge has yet to be framed though more than ten months have passed. The case of the accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In these circumstances, the accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.