Honble MADAN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in taking cognizance againt the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 341 IPC as well as 324, 325 and 326 IPC particularly when the complainant- party was the aggressor against the accused-petitioners. I am further informed that the murder of Prabhuram father of the petitioner No.1 took place over the fields of the petitioner for which they are facing the trial under Section 302/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in the cross cases which are pending, the accused non-petitioners are also facing the trial and the trial Court has already examined the plea of self defence raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing however, the trial Court rejected the plea of self defence. I am of the view that this is not the stage for any interference by this Court least, it may prejudice the trial of the accused which is pending. I am further of the view that the cognizance has already been taken against the accused for the commission of the aforesaid offences. It shall be appropriate for the petitioners to raise the aforesaid pleas at the time of framing of the charge before the trial Court. I am further of the view that the petitioners should first of all surrender themselves before the trial Court concerned and as soon as they surrender the trial Court may consider the question of their release as per its judicial dis- cretion in accordance with law. (2). With the observations made above, the revision petition is accordingly disposed of.