JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.: The two petitioners are co-accused in a case under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. registered vide F.I.R. No. 109/96 dated 11-9-1996 at Police Station, Renukaji, District Sirmaur. Their bail application has been dismissed by the Court of Shri D.D. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan vide order dated 26-9-1996. 2. The facts as contained in the impugned order are that as per allegations Shri Bir Singh son of Sh.Kansha of Village Pab Manal, Tehsil Shillai, the same village of which the petitioners are residents, had tried to molest Smt. Tulsa Devi and Smt. Bhawano Devi. In the process of saving themselves, Smt, Bhawano Devi had given a Drat blow to said Bir Singh as a result of which he died. A report was lodged by these two ladies at Police Post, Shillai and on the basis of the same the above mentioned case was registered by the Police. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Smt. Gulabo Devi widow of Bir Singh deceased, under Section 161 Cr.PC. whereby she named the petitioners as the assailants. It was alleged by her that Bhawan Singh, petitioner gave a Drat blow on the head of Bir Singh while Babu Ram, petitioner alongwith above mentioned two ladies are alleged to have hurled stone at the deceased. 3. While dismissing the bail application of the petitioners, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given the following reasons in para -7 of the impugned order, which need to be reproduced in extenso here below :- "It is well settled law that at the time of granting or refusing bail, the court is not required to go into the merits of the case. Moreover, the evidence of the prosecution suggest that the accused had committed murder in board day light. There appears to be motive for the commission of offence Shri Bir Singh was tried for murder of father of applicant Babu Ram and Bhawan Singh is brother of late Shyam Singh. The relationship between the accused party and complainant party are stated to be strained and there is every apprehension of committing same offence again, by members of either family. There may be danger even to the life of the applicants. The relationship between the accused party and complainant party are stated to be strained and there is every apprehension of committing same offence again, by members of either family. There may be danger even to the life of the applicants. On these facts and circumstances of the case it would not be proper to release the applicants on bail." The learned Additional Sessions Judge had also decided the bail application of the two other accused i.e. Tulsa Devi and Bhawano Devi by a separate order passed on the same day i.e. on 26-9- 1996. As a result of the same, he has accepted their prayer for bail by giving the following reasons contained in paras 6 and 7 of his order, which for facility of reference are reproduced here below:- ".......Admittedly, both the applicants arc women and from the same family. They are not previous convict. The alleged offence took place at about 5/6 P.M. in the village of the parties. Smt. Gulabo Devi widow of the deceased Bir Singh has not reported the matter to the police and it were the applicants who immediately after the occurrence went to the police post and narrated the incident to the police. Thus, the applicants set the police machinery in motion and as a result of their report the police visited the spot for the purpose of investigation. Other two members of the family of the applicants are also in judicial custody in this very case. Investigation of the case is complete. Both the applicants are rustic, illiterate, agriculturist ladies from the remote area of District Sirmaur and thus there is no apprehension or likelihood of their absconding or influencing the prosecution witness in the event of their release on bail. As the story goes, Shri Bir Singh deceased told Smt. Bhawano Devi applicant No.2 who is a young lady that he had already murdered her husband and now he will do the same with her and when the applicants were going towards their house, Shri Bir Singh armed with a Drat started molesting the applicant No.2, and her shirt was also torn. There is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel for the applicants that the applicants have a right of private defence in view of the acts of deceased Bir Singh. There is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel for the applicants that the applicants have a right of private defence in view of the acts of deceased Bir Singh. Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code provide that:- "When, the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death -The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last proceeding, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated namely; First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Secondly, - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Thirdly - An assault with the intention of committing rape lust; Fourthly - An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust; Fifthly - An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; Sixthly An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonable cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release." "....From the perusal of report of this case I am convinced that the case of the applicants is fully covered under the above provision. The grant or refusal of bail is to be considered in view of the principle that liberty of a person is his fundamental right. Besides above, the applicant have additional plea for admitting them to bail to bail in view of their being women. In view of above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion as to the merits or de-merits of the material collected by the police, the application is accepted...." 4. The undisputed facts are that the said Tusla Devi and Bhawano Devi had reported the occurrence to the Police on the same day when it took place i.e. 10-9-1996 at 11.00 P.M. Their version in that report was that on the same day at about 6.30 P.M. they were going towards their fields carrying manure. They met the deceased Bir Singh on the way. He was drunk and was armed with his Drat. They met the deceased Bir Singh on the way. He was drunk and was armed with his Drat. He caught hold of the applicant Bhawano Devi by her arms and gave a threat that he had earlier murdered her husband and now he would kill her. There upon there was an altercation between the three and thereafter the said two ladies left the place for their fields. When after throwing the manure in the fields they were returning, Bir Singh again accosted them and punched upon Bhawano Devi. In the ensuing scuffle her shirt was torn and she also fell down, then she snached the Drat from Bir Singh and inflicted a blow with the same on his head, while Bhawano Devi hurled stones on him. Bir Singh started running towards the house of Laiq Ram, on reaching which he fell down. Then another blow with the Drat’ was given to him, as a result of which he died at the spot. The record of the Investigating Officer, which has been made available by the learned Assistant Advocate General during the course of hearing of this application, shows that the statement of Smt. Gulabo Devi widow of deceased Bir Singh was recorded on 11-9-1996 at about 12.15 P.M. It is also not disputed that this statement was recorded at her house in the village. The two petitioners have been named as the assailants in the said statement for the first time. According to her version, the occurrence took place at about 5.00 PM on 10-9-1996. She had stated that Tulsa Devi and Bhawano Devi had gone to manure the fields, while Bir Singh deceased and Gulabo Devi had also gone there to cut grass. All the four accused, including the petitioners, met them on the way. Bhawan Singh, petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a Drat. On seeing Bir Singh, the two ladies aforementioned caught hold of Gulabo Devi and altercation took place between them. Thereafter, they all went towards the house of Laiq Ram where Bhawan Singh, petitioner gave Drat blow on the head of Bir Singh, while the other three accused including Babu Ram petitioner hurled stones at him, whereby he succumbed to his injuries there and then. Thereafter, they all went towards the house of Laiq Ram where Bhawan Singh, petitioner gave Drat blow on the head of Bir Singh, while the other three accused including Babu Ram petitioner hurled stones at him, whereby he succumbed to his injuries there and then. The motive for the crime, as alleged by Smt. Gulabo Devi is stated to be revenge for the murder of Shyam Singh stated to have been committed earlier by Bir Singh deceased. It would be pertinent and relevant to mention here that the said Shyam Singh was the husband of both Tulsa Devi and Bhawano Devi, father of BabuRam, petitioner and brother of Bhawan Singh, petitioner. 5. It is manifest from what has been narrated and discussed hereabove, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted two diametrically opposite views while deciding the two bail applications, on by the two female accused and the other by the petitioners, although orders in both the applications have been passed on the same day i.e. 26-9-1996. In the considered view of this Court this approach of he learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely uncalled for and must be deprecated. As is clear from the reasons advanced in the two orders passed by him, whereas in the case of two female accused he has come to the conclusion that their case is fully covered under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Right of private defence, and that he is convinced about the same. On the other hand, in the bail application of the two petitioners he has come to an absolutely contrary conclusion that at the time of granting or refusing bail, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the case. In the very next sentence of the impugned order, however, he has proceeded to give a finding that the prosecution evidence suggests that the petitioners had committed murder in broad day light and that there appears to be a motive on their part for having committed the crime. Not only, he has then proceeded to record the astounding finding that there may be danger even to the life of the petitioners because of the enmity and strained relations between the parties. Not only, he has then proceeded to record the astounding finding that there may be danger even to the life of the petitioners because of the enmity and strained relations between the parties. In other words, it means that by rejecting their bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has afforded them protection from any intended assault or attack by the complainant party, which is purely imaginary and a surmise. In adopting this approach, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has betrayed his lack of knowledge of basic principles of criminal jurisprudence and law. 6. The approach with which the bail application of the petitioners has been decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by adopting entirely a different yardstick than the one employed by him while deciding the bail application of the two lady co- accused, in the circumstances of the case is not justified. The said two ladies themselves had reported the occurrence to the Police as revealed in the investigation. The widow of the deceased Bir Singh, namely, Gulabo Devi came into the picture much later, when her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer at about the noon time. As such there arc two versions regarding the occurrence. Considered, in this light the denial of bail to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has resulted in injustice to them. Moreover, the recent and contemporary trend of judicial pronouncements by various High Courts and the Apex Court of the country leans more towards grant of bail, rather than the incarceration of the accused, more-so in a case of the present type. Admittedly, the investigation in so far as the petitioners are concerned is practically over, because it has been stated by the learned Assistant Advocate General that only the report of the chemical examiner is awaited. The petitioners were arrested on 13-9-1996 and since 16-9-1996 they arc stated to be in judicial custody. No purpose will be served or achieved by the prosecution by letting the petitioners continue in custody. The learned Assistant Advocate General has made a submission of despair that there is every likelihood that the widow of the deceased Bir Singh i.e. Gulabo Devi will be done to death, if the petitioners arc released on bail at this stage, due to the admitted enmity of the parties. The learned Assistant Advocate General has made a submission of despair that there is every likelihood that the widow of the deceased Bir Singh i.e. Gulabo Devi will be done to death, if the petitioners arc released on bail at this stage, due to the admitted enmity of the parties. This apprehension appears to be absolutely un-founded inasmuch as if at all any revenge was to be taken by the accused for the death of Shyam Singh, the same appears to have already been done by killing of Bir Singh in the present occurrence. This of course does not mean that the petitioners have done the foul deed, for that is a matter of their trial in the present case. 7. The investigation in the present case does not show any past criminal history on the part of the petitioners. Moreover, liberty is a fundamental right of a citizen of this country, of which he or she is not to be deprived except in accordance with the law of the land. This is one of the precise reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the order passed by him granting bail to Tulsa Devi and Bhawano Devi co-accused, but the same seems to have been conveniently ignored by him while refusing bail to the petitioners by the impugned order. For the reasons recorded above, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26-9-1996 dismissing the bail application of the petitioners is set aside. Accordingly, they are directed to be released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.15, 000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan. He may impose any condition in terms of Section 437 Cr. P.C. while accepting the bail and surety bond of the petitioners. A copy of this order be sent immediately to him for compliance.