JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that at the time when the first bail application was decided it had not been contended on behalf of the applicant that he was of 17 years of age at the time when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, and that, a cross case for the offence under Section 30, IPC, was also under investigation against the complainant party and a decree was already pas ed in favour of the applicant-accused, wherein the complainant party was restrained not to raise any construction but the complainant party on the day of occurrence was raising some construction even after the decree of injunction passed by the competent court. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of Om Prakash, it has come on record that initially the accused-applicant did not inflict any injury on any of the persons from the complainant party. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it is just possible that the accused-applicant might have inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased only when he and his father were attacked by the complainant party. Then, the learned counsel submitted that it has not been disputed that the accused applicant and his father sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party some of the injuries on the person of Chandra Mohan father of the accused-applicant were by sharp weapon and that was the reason that a case against the complainant party has been registered under Section 307, IPC which is under investigation 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the overt act of the accused-applicant.the applicant cannot be given concession of bail. 5. I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed either before this Court or before the subordinate Judge that the accused-applicant is 171/2 years of age and be is a student: that, a case had been registered against the complainant party, also for the offence under Section 307, IPC; that for the disputed house, a decree was passed in favour of the accused-party by a competent court. It has also not been disputed that the occurrence took place at the time when the complainant patty was racing construction over the house for which a decree was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant read over statement of om Prakash recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. who has deposed that initially the accused-applicant did not inflict any blow just after coming out of his house, he had inflicted blow at the time when the exchange of words took place in between Bherulal and father of the accused applicant and at that time the accused applicant inflicted blows on the person of the deceased Thus, learned counsel submitted that there is every possibility that the complainant party started beating and in defence the accused-party inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party. I am of the view that at this stage, no opinion can be expressed on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant. But, in view of the facts that the accused-applicant is a man of young age; that, a cross case has also been registered against the complainant for the offence under Section 307, IPC and that, a decree had been passed in favour of the accused-applicant; I am of the opinion this case is fit for grant of bail to the applicant Consequently, this bail application is allowed. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused-applicant, Mahesh Kumar s/o Chander Mohan r/o Bundi be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with the sureties in the amount of Rs. 500/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as ana when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case. *******