' The occurrence took place on 7-2-1993 in which Muhammad Akram the son of Mst. Zubaida complainant who lodged the F.I.R., was injured. He received two Chhuris in front of chest and abdomen.
2. In view of the medical report the bail ordinarily should not have been granted very soon after the occurrence but in any case, the petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate on 13-4-1993, his first bail application having been dismissed on 14-3-1993. Application for cancellation of the bail was moved in the Sessions Court and withdrawn from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Again application for cancellation was moved before the Magistrate who dismissed the same on 13-1- 1994. Again the application for cancellation of the bail was moved which was granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 2-3-1994.
3. Leaving aside the other considerations the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the bail having been granted on 13-4-1993, cancellation on 2-3-1994 i,e, just after about a year was not correct A particularly when the witnesses have been summoned at the trial.
In between we have no evidence of the misuse of the concession of bail.
4. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner causes any hindrance or delay in the matter of trial, the learned Magistrate would be well- justified to cancel the bail to expedite the matter.