JUDGMENT 1. - Heard at length and perused the relevant record. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that they had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale-deed and were in actual physical possession thereof. The complainant party armed with guns and other lethal weapons forcibly wanted to oust them and also fired towards them. Therefore, the petitioners had a right of private defence. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia on behalf of petitioner Baljeet Singh has also vigorously argued that according to the FIR Daljeet Singh had fired towards Darshan Singh causing him simple injuries, that Mukha Singh has three sons namely Baint Singh @ Baljeet Singh, Daljeet Singh & Harjeet Singh. According to him petitioner Baljeet Singh has been falsely implicated. 2. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the complainant party was in actual physical possession of the disputed land, that they had sown the crops and the irrigation Department had also issued the irrigation slips in their favour. According to him accused Gurjeet Singh had fired with his gun and caused fatal injuries to Jeet Singb and that Baljeet Singh and Daljeet Singh is the same person and not different persons. 3. I have considered the rival contentions. The police has already submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons before the Magistrate, who is reported to have committed the case for trial. As per version incorporated in the F3R & the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. PC, prima facie, it appears that petitioner Gurjeet Singh was the author of the fatal gun shots, which caused the death of Jeet Singh. Smt. Jogendra Kaur in her statement under section 161 Cr. PC has specifically mentioned that Baljeet Singh is also known by the name of Daljeet Singh. At this stage, there is not a fringe of evidence to suggest that the Baint Singh is also known as Daljeet Singh. Whether the petitioner had the right of private defence or whether they were justified in firing gun shots in exercise of their right of private defence can only be decided after the statements of the witnesses are recorded. At this stage, this controversy cannot be resolved. Hence, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case 1 am of the considered opinion that the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail, at this stage. 4. At this stage, this controversy cannot be resolved. Hence, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case 1 am of the considered opinion that the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail, at this stage. 4. I, therefore, dismiss this bail application. The petitioners shall however, be at liberty to file another bail application after the statements of the eye witnesses are recorded by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge is directed to examine these witnesses expeditiously.Bail rejected. *******