Judgment :- 1. This is an application for bail preferred on behalf of the first accused in P. E. 21/66 on the file of the Sub Magistrate of Trivandrum. The accused stands charged with having committed the murder of one Sivaji at about 2 in the night on 17-c-1966. Two other persons, also stand charged along with him, but the charge against them is only one under S.201 I. P. C. They have already been enlarged. On 20101966 an application was moved on behalf of this petitioner before the sessions court, Trivandrum. The case stood posted at that time in the committing Magistrate's court to 29101966 for the examination of the eye witnesses. The learned sessions judge in dismissing the application had observed that after the witnesses were examined by the committing Magistrate, the accused could move again for bail before him. Accordingly, after the witnesses were examined and the case itself had been committed to the Sessions for trial, a further application was moved by him for bail, but by that time the case had been made over to the file of the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge at the station and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the application. 2. For the purpose of this petition the following facts emerging from the materials available before me alone need recapitulation. They are as follows: The murdered was an young man well placed in life. He was married and was living with his wife and children. He had a girl friend by name Vasumathy (it is alleged that he was her local guardian), who was an inmate of the "Jaya lodge" a boarding and lodging for women, run by the accused. The accused was running also another lodge for men by the name "Jayamohan lodge". Even though he was the proprietor of both these institutions, his wife was the matron of the Jaya Lodge and it was practically under her control. At about 2 in the night on 17-c-66 the deceased in a car made his way to the Jaya Lodge with the avowed object of taking away Vasumathy for the night. Since the lodge was closed and the watcher did not admit him in, he returned and on the way he met Pw-1, Thankappan Nair, a Soda hawker who led him to the house of the accused. Since the lodge was closed and the watcher did not admit him in, he returned and on the way he met Pw-1, Thankappan Nair, a Soda hawker who led him to the house of the accused. He stopped his car in front of the accused's house, pushed open the gate and walked in. Pw-1 stood at the gate watching. Hearing the deceased's shouts "Hullo"! "Hullo"! and the sound of pushing open the gate, the accused woke up, switched on the light and came out. To him the deceased made the demand that Vasumathy should be allowed to go with him then and there. He told the accused that his child was seriously ill and he stood badly in need of Vasumathy's services at home. The accused said that it was not possible for Him to send the girl with an absolute stranger like him, especially at that part of the night. The deceased insisted in getting the girl and he told the accused further that it was his practice to take out the girl from the lodge as and when he desired and that fact would be vouchsafed by the accused's wife. At this stage the accused's wife came out and she also told the deceased that it was impossible to send the girl with him. Getting himself disappointed, the deceased turned back and saying in a determined tone that he would try other methods to get at the girl, moved towards the gate. The accused retaliated saying that people like the deceased were bent upon spoiling young girls and this rebuff, the deceased did not relish. He again turned back and at the nick of the moment the accused advanced towards him and dealt 3 or 4 blows on him with the hand. The deceased fell down on receipt of the blows and sprang up in the next moment. By the time, the accused went in, and came out with a knife. The deceased then moved towards the accused asking him why he was beaten like that and that no wrong was done by him. As he drew near the accused, the accused dealt a stab on -him which hit his chest and he fell down pressing the wound with his hand. Within a short time he died at the spot. 3. The deceased then moved towards the accused asking him why he was beaten like that and that no wrong was done by him. As he drew near the accused, the accused dealt a stab on -him which hit his chest and he fell down pressing the wound with his hand. Within a short time he died at the spot. 3. On these facts learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the deceased had committed house breaking by night and when his demand to surrender the girl was refused, he took a militant attitude and started attacking him. In the circumstances, the learned counsel would argue that the right of private defence of property and person was available to the accused and therefore it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend with equal force that even conceding that the purpose for which the deceased had entered the courtyard of the accused's house was not laudable the fact remains that the attack was unprovoked and without any justification. He would also point out that the deceased actually was retreating on being told that the girl could not be surrendered to him and it was when he was thus receding that he was attacked by the accused with the knife. 4. Lengthy arguments were addressed on both sides and some authorities were also placed before me touching on the nature and scope of the powers vested is this court under S.497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not propose to go into the question in such minute details, because it is unnecessary for the purpose of this petition. A decision on the question of allowing or refusing bail will depend more on the facts of the case on hand than on decisions rendered generally on S.497 and 498 of the Code. On the very facts of the case which are undisputed, I think the accused may be enlarged without doing violence to the language or spirit of S.497 or 498 of the Code and also without prejudice to the prosecution case as such. The following aspects of the case stand out prominent and are particularly helpful in the decision I take. On the very facts of the case which are undisputed, I think the accused may be enlarged without doing violence to the language or spirit of S.497 or 498 of the Code and also without prejudice to the prosecution case as such. The following aspects of the case stand out prominent and are particularly helpful in the decision I take. They are: (1) the occurrence is seen to have taken place in the courtyard of the accused's house and that too at 2 O' clock in the night; (2) the dead body was found the next day at the smell verandha of the house; and (3) it is seen from the inquest report that the smell of liquor was gushing forth from the mouth of the dead body. Along with this, the further fact that the material witnesses in the case have all been examined by the committing Magistrate and the case itself has been committed to the court of session, has also to be taken into consideration. There is only one eye witness in the case and he has been examined. Learned Public Prosecutor was not able to convince me as to. what further purpose would be served by the continued detention of the accused. I Would, therefore, allow the petition and direct the release of the petitioner-accused, on; his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1000/- with two solvent sureties each fop a like amount to the satisfaction of the First Addl. Sessions Judge. Trivandrum. Allowed.