VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE of this bail application was given to the Government Advocate on 4/9/1992. This bail application came up before Mr. Justice Kundan Singh on 29/9/1992. It appears that due to some embarrassment he washed his hands of this case and directed that the case be laid before another Honble Judge. On the same date the Honble Acting Chief Justice nominated me by name to hear the bail application. The file was received in my Court on 29/9/1992 after lunch. Mr. G. S. Chaturvedi learned counsel for the applicants informed the Court that he has informed Sri Murlidhar Misra (learned counsel for the complainant) that the bail application will betaken up in my Court on that day. The learned State Counsel had also received his file but since Sri Murlidhar Misra was absent. I directed that the bail application be listed on 14/10/1992 showing the name of Sri Murlidhar Misra as counsel for the complainant. When the case was taken up on 14/10/1992 Sri Murlidhar Misra appeared and informed that this case was again listed before Honble Kundan Singh, J. and that his name was not printed in the cause list of that date. Sri B. K. Pandey, the Deputy Registrar Judicial informed the Court that he had sent a written information through special messenger to Sri Murlidhar Misra on 13/9/1992 that the case will be taken in my Court on 14/10/1992 but Sri Murlidhar Misra refused to acknowledge the receipt. Sri Murlidhar Misra denied the information given by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as false. To avoid any grievance to Sri Murlidhar Misra I directed that the case be taken up on 15/10/1992. , ( 2 ) I have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Murlidhar Misra learned counsel for the complainant and the learned State counsel on 15/10/1992, 16/10/1992, 20/10/1992 and today at great length and have perused the record. ( 3 ) THERE are 28 accused in this case of whom 16 are the applicants in this bail application. All the accused barring stray exceptions belong to the same family. Applicant Nazira. ( 3 ) THERE are 28 accused in this case of whom 16 are the applicants in this bail application. All the accused barring stray exceptions belong to the same family. Applicant Nazira. Shabbir, Gulzar and Sattar are sons of Amir Ahmad and are real brothers, Mahmood and Nisar are sons of applicant Nazira, applicants Rafiq, Ashraf, Aslam and Akram are sons of applicant Shabbir, Raizwan is son of applicant of Sattar and applicants Anis and Shakil are sons of applicant Gulzar. ( 4 ) SO far as deceased Aslam is concerned, the post-mortem report shows that he sustained a single gun shot injury and there was no other injury of any kind on his person. The role assigned to the applicants is that they had attacked the complainants side with lathis. In this way the applicants are not the author of the injury found on the person of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the two parties were engaged in exchanging blows at the house of Dr. Akhtar (according to the defence case at the house of accused Gulzar) the deceased appeared in order to save and closing no time, he left the spot, in order to rush to the police station. At this stage it is alleged that non applicants Irfan and Fazal chased him to a considerable distance and the site plan shows that when the deceased had covered a distance of 270 paras he was shot by non applicant Irfan. The site plan shows that the deceased first proceeded towards south on the Rasta and then turned towards west and after crossing several houses he was Shot. The spot where the deceased was shot is not even visible from the house of Dr. Akhtar. Whether the shooting by Irfan at the instigation of Fazla was also in the prosecution of the common object of the un-law assembly leaven question mark in my mind. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that even if we go by the prosecution case, it was the individual act of Irfan and Fazla. In my opinion this matter will have to be decided at the trial after entire evidence is recorded. The fact remains that the cases of the applicants are distinguishable from the cases of Irfan and Fazla. In my opinion this matter will have to be decided at the trial after entire evidence is recorded. The fact remains that the cases of the applicants are distinguishable from the cases of Irfan and Fazla. ( 5 ) ONE cannot over look the fact that there are as many as 28 accused in this case and the learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that the accused belonged to the same family and Same of them might have been falsely added as accused on account of close relationship, with the other accused. It is noteworthy that none of the present applicants have received any injury which may lend assurance regarding their participation in the incident. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complainants side had attacked the accused side who, had the right of private defence. He further pointed out that three persons of the complainants party namely Yusuf, Fazla and Matlub were found at the house of accused Gulzar and he submitted that the allegation in the F. I. R. that these three persons had been taken by the accused themselves to their own house is a rouse to camouflage the own guilt of the complainants side. In reply Sri Murlidhar Misra the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the number and the nature of injuries outweigh the nature and number of injuries on the side of the accused. He submitted that the complainants side had inflicted some of injuries on the accused to save themselves while some of the injuries of the accused are manufactured. ( 7 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. There are injuries on both sides. Besides the deceased, who received a solitary gun shot injury, there are seven other injured on the side of the complainant whereas on the side of the accused six of them have received injuries. The injuries on either side show that fire arms, cutting weapons and blunt weapons were used and even on the side of the accused there are 35 injuries and if we add multiple injuries the number of injuries would be 42 on the side of the accused whereas there are 106 injuries on the injured on the side of the prosecution. The injuries on the side of the accused are also on vital parts of their body. The injuries on the side of the accused are also on vital parts of their body. There are claims and counter claims of aggression. ( 8 ) LARGE number of cases have been cited at the Bar which I have gone through and have kept in my mind while deciding this bail application. These cases are on the commencement, continuation and extent of right of private defence. Sri Murlidhar Misra has also. placed some orders passed by some other Honble Judges of this Court rejecting individual bail applications. Each case has its own peculiar features and has to be decided on its own facts. I will not embark upon discussing ruling after rulings in this order as the same may prejudice the trial one way or the other. In bail applications such views should not be expressed which may prejudice the trial. The evidence is yet to be recorded and it would be for the trial court to decide the question of right of private defence after the evidence is recorded. ( 9 ) LASTLY, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the applicants were involved in some cases. In a case of exercise of right of private defence it is immaterial whether the accused was involved in any earlier case because even an accused who is involved in any other previous case has the right to preserve his own life in the exercise of the right of private defence. It cannot be argued that mere involvement in any other case will deprive the accused of his right of private defence or that the law requires such an accused to allow his life or limbs to be lost by submitting to aggression. ( 10 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a case for grant of bail is spelled out. The applicants Nazira, Shabbir, Gulzar, Sattar, Mahmood, Nizar. Abrar, Rafiq, Ashraf, Aslam, Akram, Rizwan, Yasin, Rafi, Anis and Shakil, involved in Crime No. 51 of 1992, u/ss. ( 10 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a case for grant of bail is spelled out. The applicants Nazira, Shabbir, Gulzar, Sattar, Mahmood, Nizar. Abrar, Rafiq, Ashraf, Aslam, Akram, Rizwan, Yasin, Rafi, Anis and Shakil, involved in Crime No. 51 of 1992, u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 324, 325, 326, 452, 504 I. P. C. of P. S. Garhi Pukhta, District Muzaffarnagar shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Mu zaffa rn a g a r. Bail application allowed. .