JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. 1. This is an application for bail on behalf of Om Prakash applicant for an offence under sections 302/307/323/34 IPC in Crime No. 122/85, Police Station Bazpur, District Nainital. 2. The prosecution story as contained in the first information report (Annexure-I) is that the informant Ram Charan has a house in village Badwala and has his field close to the south of the house. At one corner of the house he has got a store of cow-dung-cake and adjoining his field to the west is the field of Om Prakash, the present applicant. As Om Prakash has broken the mend of the informant, hence a complaint was made to him but nevertheless the applicant kept silent. On 14-7-1985 in the morning the wife of the applicant started forcibly taking away the cow-dung-cakes from the store of the informant and wife of the informant, Smt. Rameshwari reprimanded her not to do so. Thereafter the wife of the applicant went home abusing the informant, At about 8 a. m. on the date of the occurrence the applicant came with his double barrel gun and the applicant's son Sanjiv and his wife came armed with lathis and they reached the field of the informant. At that time the informant his elder brother Hardayal, his wife Smt. Rameshwari, his aunt Smt. Bhuri and hi father Bhoop Singh were standing besides the aforesaid store. The applican without saying anything with an intention to kill the informant and his family members fired twice and one fire hit the informant's elder brother Hardayal and by the other fire the face and head of the aunt of the informant was hit. His brother was also injured. The son of the applicant also used his lathi inflicting injuries on the informant and his father Bhoop Singh. Rahim Khan and Girdhari Lal have seen the incident. The assailants ran away thereafter. Post mortem examination report of the deceased (Annexure-2) contained two gun shot wounds and three lacerated wounds on the deceased. Injuries of Hardayal from the side of the prosecution are to be found in Annexure 'S-l' to the supplementary affidavit and he received one gun shot wound. Injuries of Bhup Singh are in Annexure 'S-2' to the supplementary affidavit and he received two contusions. One lacerated wound, two contusions and one swelling were received by the informant. Injuries of Hardayal from the side of the prosecution are to be found in Annexure 'S-l' to the supplementary affidavit and he received one gun shot wound. Injuries of Bhup Singh are in Annexure 'S-2' to the supplementary affidavit and he received two contusions. One lacerated wound, two contusions and one swelling were received by the informant. I have heard Sri D. N. Wali, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. D. Misra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the State. 3. Mr. D. N. Wali, the learned counsel for the applicant, urged that the injuries were caused by the applicant (?) prosecution in exercise of their right of self defence of persons inasmuch as the applicant Om Prakash has received injuries which are contained in Annexure 4' to the affidavit (Page 14). The injuries of the applicant are one contusion 8.0 x 2.0 cm. situated over posterior surface of left fore-arm the second injury was lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 0.7 cm. situated over left side of head, bone deep, 15 cm. above left eye brow and the third injury was lacerated wound of 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. situated over the right side of head. Injuries no. 1 and 2 were kept under observation and X-Ray was advised for the injury on the fore-arm and on the skull. Further the applicant's son Sanjiv Kumar has also received one lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x .4 cm. x scalp deep situated over left side of head 9 cm. above the left eye brow. Clotted blood was present and the second injury was that the applicant's son complained pain over both the thighs. These injuries were not explained by the prosecution and no explanation was furnished in the first information report about these injuries of the applicant and his son. The applicant has also lodged a first information report about the defence version. That first information report is Annexure 3 (Page 11) of the affidavit. In that first information report Ram Charan informant, Hardayal, Bhoop Singh and Smt. Rameshwari have been made accused. Sri D. N. Wali further urged that as the injuries from the side of the applicant have not been explained and the first information, report has been lodged from the side of the applicant, the applicant was entitled to bail and even acquittal. Sri D. N. Wali further urged that as the injuries from the side of the applicant have not been explained and the first information, report has been lodged from the side of the applicant, the applicant was entitled to bail and even acquittal. He placed reliance on Rishi Kesh Singh v. The State, AIR 1970 All. 51 FB and Prabhoo's case, 1941 AWR (HC) 320 FB. 4. Sri M. D. Misra, the learned counsel for the complainant and SRI Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the State urged that the injuries received by the applicant and his son (from the side of the defence) were fabricated and may be self-inflicted and no case for self defence was made out. SRI M. D. Misra placed reliance on Onkarnath Singh v. The State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 1550 ; Bhaba Nanda Sarma v. The State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252 and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that the injuries received by the side of the accused, particularly, by the applicant and his son have not been explained by the prosecution. The case of self defence was pleaded by the applicant. This Court by the majority view in Rishi Kesh Singh v. The State, AIR 1970 All. 51 FB (supra) has held as follows :- "The answer of the majority of learned Judges who decided AIR 1941 All. 402 (FB)= 1941 AWR (HC) 320 is still good law. The case of self defence was pleaded by the applicant. This Court by the majority view in Rishi Kesh Singh v. The State, AIR 1970 All. 51 FB (supra) has held as follows :- "The answer of the majority of learned Judges who decided AIR 1941 All. 402 (FB)= 1941 AWR (HC) 320 is still good law. It means that in a case in which, in answer to a prima facie prosecution case, any general exception in the Indian Penal Code is pleaded by an accused and evidence is adduced to support such a plea, but such evidence fails to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the accused has fully established his plea, he will still be entitled to an acquittal, provided that after weighing the evidence as a whole prudently (including the evidence given in support of the plea of the said general exception) the Court reaches the conclusion that, as a consequence of the doubt arising about the existense of the exception, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." It is clear that where a plea of self defence is set up and the injuries have been received by the accused and those injuries have not been explained, even though the defence set up may not be proved to its hilt to the satisfaction of the Court, nevertheless if while considering the injuries of the accused doubt is created in the mind of the Court, nevertheless the accused would be entitled to acquittal. In the instant case the injuries of the accused have not been explained in the first information report. The first information report on behalf of the applicant has also been lodged which is Annexure 3'. 5. As regards the arguments advanced by Sri M. D. Misra and the arguments of the learned counsel for the State I have to state that the injuries of the applicant and his son have not been explained. There is not even a mention in the first information report. 6. In Onkar Nath Singh v. The State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 1550 it has been held that where injuries have not been explained, the entire prosecution cannot be thrown over board simply because the witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. There is not even a mention in the first information report. 6. In Onkar Nath Singh v. The State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 1550 it has been held that where injuries have not been explained, the entire prosecution cannot be thrown over board simply because the witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. On page 1557 (Para 34) the Supreme Court has held as follows : "Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinise their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private defence set up by the accused." In Bhaba Nanda Sarma v. The State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252 it was held on page 2253 as follows ;- "In a case of this nature before an adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for its alleged suppression or failure to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, it must be reasonably shown that, in all probability, the injuries were caused to him in the same occurrence or as a part of the same transaction in which the victims on the side of the prosecution were injured. The prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of an accused in all cases and in all circumstances. This is not the law. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the injuries on the accused." 7. The prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of an accused in all cases and in all circumstances. This is not the law. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the injuries on the accused." 7. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 it was held as follows :- " It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences :- (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; (2) that the witness who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable ; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. AIR 1968 SC 1281 and AIR 1975 SC 1674 relied on. " 8. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made above by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. But these observations do not help the complainant nor these observations in any way carry forward the case of the complainant. In fact these observations go against the case of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid discussion about the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in the case where right of self defence is pleaded and the injuries have been received on the persons of the accused and those injuries have not been explained by the prosecution in the first information report obviously means that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the" origin of the occurrence and the witnesses who make statements that they did not see the injuries on the persons of the accused would be telling lie. In that event the entire prosecution case would be liable to be disbelieved subject of course to the effect that the accused may be convicted at the trial for exceeding right of self defence proved. In that event the entire prosecution case would be liable to be disbelieved subject of course to the effect that the accused may be convicted at the trial for exceeding right of self defence proved. 9. The principles of granting bail have been explained in a number of other decisions of the Supreme Court. In Gurbachan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 on page 186 it was held as follows :- "The overiding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Sec, 437 (1) and Sec, 439 (1), CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed ; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses ; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice ; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case ; of tampering with witnesses ; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. " 10. In the instant case the first condition about the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed is applicable and on other aspects no arguments were advanced. The nature of the offence is that the accused has received a number of injuries and his son was also injured. But these injuries were not explained in the first information report and the first information report was lodged from the side of the applicant and that is filed as Annexure 3'. In Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 it has been held on page 373 that the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial. 11. It would not, however, be out of place to make a mention about the English Law of Bails. 11. It would not, however, be out of place to make a mention about the English Law of Bails. In England the English Law of Bails is contained in Bail Act, 1976 and under that Act a presumption for bail has been made in all the offences and the Law of Bails has been made more liberal and in case the bail is being rejected the grounds have to be stated. IT would be proper if a reference is made to the Criminal Procedure by Celia Hampton (Third Edition), Page 96:5. Principles of Bail which reads as under :- "Under the Bail Act, 1976 all bail in criminal proceedings is subject to the general principles of bail ; in some cases bail must be granted unless certain factors are present. This represents a shift in emphasis from the previous law and it was hoped that; enactment of a ' presumption ' in favour of bail would make courts more ready to grant it than previously. IT is supported by the important requirement that reasons must be given when refusing or limiting bail. " But these principles of bail as contained under the Bail Act, 1976 applicable in England are not to be applied in India inasmuch as in England there is a specific statutory law which contains different provisions of commensurate to the socio-geographical conditions prevailing in that country. Whereas in our country socio-geographical conditions are entirely different. In view of our necessity for society we have enacted Code of Criminal Procedure containing different provisions under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC. Hence in no case, it would be proper to make reference to the Law of Bails and the principles for granting bails as prevailing in England. 12. In the instant case as, stated above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant Om Prakash involved in Crime No. 122 of 1985 under sections 302/307/323/34 IPC, Police Station Bazpur, District Nainital be released on bail on his executing personal bonds and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The copy of the order would be issued, however, within 3 days.