JUDGMENT 1. - This application under Section 439, Cr.RC. of the accusation against the accused applicant is for the offence under Section 302, IPC. 2. It is alleged that the applicant inflicted knife injury in the abdomen of the deceased and as a result of which, later died due to the shock due to excess hemorrhages. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased inflicted knife injury to the accused applicant and in this scuffle, the deceased sustained injury from his own knife and that the accused applicant lodged a report in the police in this regard and in this case, the investigating agency found that a case for the offence Under section 324 IPC, was made court against the deceased, but since he has died, the final report was filed by the police. It has, further been argued that the factum of scuffle between the deceased and the accused applicant is evident from the statement of witnesses, Mubark Khan and Nand Lal, recorded by the Investigating Officer, Under section 161, Cr.PC. in this very case in hand, and this lends support to the FIR lodged by the accused applicant against the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the accused applicant, the prosecution case is not wholly true and having regard to the cross case, the accused applicant is entitled to the bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the mere existence of a cross case does not absolve the accused applicant from the alleged crime and that from the evidence of the witnesses, Hardeva, Ram Niwas and Banwari Lal. it is quite evident that the fatal injury has been caused by the accused applicant. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused applicant is not entitled to the bail in such a heinous crime of murder specifically when he is the author of fatal injury. Having considered the contentions of both the sides, it may be stated that it is well settled in law that normally in the case of murder the benefit of bail is not granted to the accused who is said to be author of fatal injury. Having considered the contentions of both the sides, it may be stated that it is well settled in law that normally in the case of murder the benefit of bail is not granted to the accused who is said to be author of fatal injury. The question as to whether the accused is liable for murder or culpable homicide not amount to murder or whether the right of private defence accrued to the accused or not, or whether the version of the cross case inspire confidence or not, cannot be resolved at this stage of bail. The prosecution has raised the point that the accused applicant is a previous conflict and as such, he is not entitled to the bail in view of the provisions of section 437 Cr.PC. which cannot be lost sight by the High Court while acting under section 439, Cr.PC. I need not go into this point and discuss the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the accused applicant in this regard because the bail application deserves to be dismissed on merits as indicated above. 6. Hence, this bail application under Section 439, Cr.PC. is, hereby, dismissed.> Application rejected. *******