JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C., and the accusation against the accused-applicant, is for offence under Section 302, IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant, contended that from the evidence of witness Jalla alias Jalsingh, it is evident that the accused-applicant had put a stone on the boundary of the fields, which separates the field of the deceased from that of the accused-applicant. The said stone slipped away into the field of the deceased. The deceased objected thereto. Upon this, exchange of words & anger took place. The deceased, Ramjilal, gave a blow on the head of the accused-applicant, with a 'Kasia', which the deceased was having. Thereupon, the accused-applicant snatched away the 'Kasia' from the hands of the deceased and inflicted injuries upon him, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died. According to the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, this evidence of Jalla alias Jalsingh, goes to indicate that the accused-applicant inflicted the injuries to the deceased, in the right of private-defence. He has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in the case of Nabia Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1992 Cri.LJ. 526 (SC) , to support his contention. In the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the accused had snatched the knife from the hands of the deceased and given him a number of blows, which resulted in his death. Hon'ble The Supreme Court held that the accused must be held to have acted in the right of self-defence. 3. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant has argued that normally, an accused, who was inflicted the fatal injury, should not be given the benefit of bail, but that where it appears that the accused has acted in his self-defence, bail should be granted to him.3-A. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have argued that the accused-applicant is the author of the fatal injury and that at the stage of bail, the question of right of self-defence cannot be gone into. According to the prosecution, the accused-applicant must be held to be the aggressor and no right of private-defence accrues to an aggressor. 4. I have heard, considered the arguments and contentions of both the sides. 5. It is not proper to discuss and express any opinion on the merits of the case and the evidence. According to the prosecution, the accused-applicant must be held to be the aggressor and no right of private-defence accrues to an aggressor. 4. I have heard, considered the arguments and contentions of both the sides. 5. It is not proper to discuss and express any opinion on the merits of the case and the evidence. But, having regard to the overall facts & circumstances of the case, including the evidence of witness Jalla alias Jalsingh, I am of the opinion that the accused-applicant should be extended the benefit of bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the accused applicant, Chhotelal, son of Thanaram, involved in FIR No. 294/98, of Police Station-Kishangarhbas (Alwar), be released on bail, if he.furnishes two. surety bonds for Rs. 10,000/- each and a personal bond for Rs. 20,000/-to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.Bail Allowed. *******