SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioner, by filing the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 224 of 16.08.2021, which was registered against him, at Police Station New Colony, Gurugram, constituting therein offences under Sections 307 & 201 of the IPC, and, under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act.

2. The bail applicant-petitioner is stated to be suffering judicial incarceration since 15.09.2021.

3. The present bail petitioner is the sole accused in the above FIR, and, the incriminatory role, as, assigned therein to him, is of his wielding at the crime site, a licensed double barrel gun, and, also therefrom his firing shots at the victim-aggrieved.

4. The learned counsel for the victim – complainant, has vehemently opposed the granting of the craved indulgence of bail to the present petitioner, and, his above submission is rested, on the fact, that four gun shots were fired, by the bail petitioner, from the above incriminatory weapon of offence, at the victim, and, it is a sheer chance that none of the gun shots struck the person of the victim.

5. However, the afore made submission, does not carry any weight, at this stage, as, the above firing of gun shots, at the person of the victim, by the bail petitioner, though constitutes an offence embodied in Section 307 of the IPC, but the gravity of the above offence(s) becomes diminished, from the trite factum that, even if they were fired from the double barrel gun, wielded at the crime site, by the petitioner, yet they missed the target, thereupon, it only reflects the poor marksmanship of the accused, and, does not entail, as, contended by the learned counsel, for the victim concerned, any heinous penal consequences.

6. Since, an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, is the one which has been added in the FIR (supra), and, when during the course of investigations being made into the FIR by the IO concerned, the petitioner has ensured the making of the apposite recovery, to the IO concerned, and, also when it is stated at the Bar, by the learned State Counsel, that after completion of investigations into FIR (supra), by the IO concerned, a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., has been instituted, before the learned trial Judge concerned, besides also when no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, that in the event of the bail applicant being enlarged on regular bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice, and, or, tampering with prosecution evidence. Consequently, this Court does not deem it fit to order for any prolongation of the judicial incarceration of the petitioner, as, thereupon, his personal liberty would become unnecessarily curtailed, and, fettered. Contrarily, it is deemed appropriate to admit the bail petitioner to regular bail.

7. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed, and the bail applicant – petitioner is ordered to be released from judicial custody, on his furnishing, within one week, personal and surety bonds in the sum of ` 50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to his not tampering with prosecution evidence, and/or not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, also his appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when he is required to be making his personal appearance(s) unless validly exempted.