JUDGMENT:- After having failed to secure bail from the Sessions Court the applicants have moved this Court for grant of bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Applicant No.1 is serving as Security Manager and Applicant No.2 as Assistant Security Officer in M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., at Buti Bori. Applicant no.l retired as Lt. Colonel from Indian Army. He had rendered 26 years of unblemished service in the Army and had earned several medals to his credit. After his retirement from the Army he joined the said Company on 17-3-2005 Applicant no.2 is serving with the said Company since 1994 3. A couple of months before the incident in question an agitation was going on by the workers of the said Company for abolition of contract work system and for hike in wages. Since there was no settlement between the Company and its workers, the Company had approached initially the Industrial Court and subsequently the Civil Court. By order dated 30-8-2005 the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.41512004 directed Respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein not to stop the buses which carry the employees and the Officers of the Company; not to gherao, intimidate or physically man-handle any member of the managerial staff of the Company; not to hold any demonstration or erect pendal or conduct gate meeting within hundred meters from the gate of the establishment of the Company till next date. By order dated 1-9-2005 the Civil Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.1221 of 2005 granted exparte ad-interim injunction against the defendants therein restraining them from blocking Gate Nos. 1 ,3,4,5 and 6 of the Company; from man-handling the management personnel or any officer of the Company; from uttering filthy abuses in the name of the management or any of its officers; from hampering the ingress and egress of the buses from the gate of the Company. This shows that the relations between the Company and its workers were strained at the material time. 4. On 17-9-2005 in the afternoon a Member of Parliament held Gate Meeting of the workers near Gate No.6 of the Company. After the meeting was over the workers came near Gate No.3 where the Security Office is located. The workers demanded that buses should be provided to them by the Company for going back to their homes. 4. On 17-9-2005 in the afternoon a Member of Parliament held Gate Meeting of the workers near Gate No.6 of the Company. After the meeting was over the workers came near Gate No.3 where the Security Office is located. The workers demanded that buses should be provided to them by the Company for going back to their homes. It was clarified to them that the shift was over by 2.30 p.m., the buses left with the workers on duty and that no bus was available for them. This enraged the workers and thereafter the disturbance started. 5. It is not disputed by the applicants that applicant no. 1 opened fire from his .32 bore revolver around 4.30 p.m. and five bullets were fired. Mr. Ramnarayan alias Ballu Shriwas, Mr. Anil Kshirsagar and Mr. Rambhau Prajapati sustained bullet injuries. Mr. Yajendra S. Thakur, Mr. Nitin Jawanjal and Mr. Pravin Khedkar sustained bum injuries. Thereafter the applicants disappeared from the scene. On the same day both of them were arrested by the Police. Crime No.139 of 2005 for the offences punishable under sections 307,294 and 506 r/ w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered against certain persons including the applicants. Initially PCR of the applicants was obtained and subsequently they were sent to MCR on 22-9-2005. Both the applicants moved the Sessions Court for grant of bail. By order dated 30-9-2005 their application was rejected. Hence the present application. 6. Mr. V. R. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the incident in question will have to be considered on the background of the dispute between the Management and the Workers in respect of contract work system and hike in wages. Mr. Manohar submitted that the Management was required to approach the Industrial Court as well as Civil Court for restraining the illegal activities of the workers. The instant cause for the incident in question was demand of buses by the workers after the Gate Meeting was over. 7. It was urged by Mrs. S. S. Wandile, learned APP for the State, that it was just a demand for buses which provoked the applicants and they resorted to assault on the defenceless workers. Mrs. Wandile submitted that the workers were not armed with any weapons. Mrs. Wandile wanted to submit that applicant no. 7. It was urged by Mrs. S. S. Wandile, learned APP for the State, that it was just a demand for buses which provoked the applicants and they resorted to assault on the defenceless workers. Mrs. Wandile submitted that the workers were not armed with any weapons. Mrs. Wandile wanted to submit that applicant no. 1 was not justified in opening fire on the workers. Mrs. Wandile submitted that after the meeting organised by the Member of Parliament was over police personnel were available in vicinity and the applicants could have approached the police personnel when according to the applicants the workers went on rampage. Instead of doing that applicant no.1 resorted to fire and as such right of private defence is not available to him. In this respect Mrs. Wandile invited my attention to Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code which reads that there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. 8. The submission made by Mrs. Wandile apparently appears to be very attractive. But considering the circumstances of the case where an unruly mob of workers entered the cabin of the Security Officer, started damaging the property of the Company and even started beating the security personnels it appears impracticable that the security personnels would rush to the police instead of tackling the situation themselves which in fact is the part of their duty. Hence the submission made by the learned APP cannot be accepted. 9. The statements of Nandansingh Shersingh Bist and Shashank Choubey were recorded on 19-9-2005 and 8-10-2005 respectively. They have been described as independent witnesses by the prosecution in its reply itself. The statements of these witnesses clearly show that huge mob of the workers had assembled near Gate No.3; they asked for buses and when they were informed that no buses were available, they started abusing the Security Officers including the applicants. Some of them including those who were subsequently injured entered the cabin of the Security Officer from wicket gate and started destructing whatever came in their way. Some of the workers were even armed with iron rods and sticks. This shows that the workers were not defenceless as urged by the learned APP. It is true that all the workers might not have been armed as stated by the applicants in their application. Some of the workers were even armed with iron rods and sticks. This shows that the workers were not defenceless as urged by the learned APP. It is true that all the workers might not have been armed as stated by the applicants in their application. However the statements referred to above show that many workers were armed and had started destroying the property of the Company and even went to the extent of causing injuries to the applicants. 10. Mr. Manohar urged that looking to the eminent danger not only to the property of the Company which the applicants were bound to protect as a part of their duty but also danger to their own lives, applicant no.1 had no other go but to open fire in order to save himself and the property of the Company. 11. It may be noted that Ramnarayan Alias Ballu Shriwas sustained gun-shot injury over right middle arm and chest; Anil s/o. Nathuji Kshirsagar sustained contused lacerated wound over scalp frontal region and Rambhau s/o. Bholaram Prajapati sustained gun-shot injury over neck. Mrs. Wandile submitted that all these injuries were located on vital part of the body and were of serious nature. All the three injured were required to be admitted to the Hospital. Those injured were discharged from the Hospital on 11-10-2005, 19-9-2005 and 21-9-2005 respectively. Pravin Khedkar, Nitin Jawanjal and Pravin Khedkar sustained burn injuries to the extent of 20 to 40%. 12. In this respect it was urged by Mr. Manohar that applicant no.1 holds arms and ammunition licence since 1997 for .32 Bore Revolver and the same has been renewed from time to time. It was also urged that .32 Bore Revolver is a low powered and adaptable to small, light, cheap pocket-type handguns. It is used for self-defense and is considered inadequate for police work. It is occasionally used for hunting birds and small wild animals. 13. In this respect it may be noticed that the injury reports in respect of these three injured show that the nature of the injuries was grievous and the weapon used was dangerous. However the opinion column in all the injury reports is blank. The injury reports do not show whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 14. Mr. However the opinion column in all the injury reports is blank. The injury reports do not show whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 14. Mr. Manohar further urged that the evidence collected by the prosecution itself goes to establish that applicant no.1 opened fire in his self-defence. Mr. Manohar submitted that right to private defence commenced when the unruly mob of the workers started destroying the property of the Company and started assaulting the applicants. He submitted that in these circumstances it was perfectly legitimate for the applicants to exercise their right of private defence. In this respect Mr. Manohar relied on the observations in State of V.P. Vs. Haripal Singh and others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 3023. Mr. Manohar further submitted that while exercising their right of private defence the applicants might have exceeded it. However, as noted in Buta Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1316 which is referred to in James Martin Vs. State of Kerala, 2004(2) SCC 203 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 551 (S.C.)], it has been observed as under : "A person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assai lams who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him. Where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repeal the force in self-defence and the right of private defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight -·or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hypertechnical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration." 15. In Vidhya Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1971 SC 1857 , it has been observed as under: The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. In Vidhya Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1971 SC 1857 , it has been observed as under: The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot, it would be inappropriate, as held by this Court, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so natural in a courtroom, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times or under normal circumstances. 16. One thing as admitted by the applicants is certain that the bullet injuries to three injured were caused by applicant no.1. The question whether right of private defence had commenced and whether it was available to the applicants will have to be judged from the evidence to be adduced during trial. It would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion in that regard at this stage. 17. It was further urged by Mr. Manohar that even if a prima facie case is established, the applicants can claim to be released on bail. In this respect Mr. Manohar relied on Bhagirathsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 wherein it has been observed as under: "If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established. the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence." 18. From this point of view it would be seen that the applicants have deep roots at Nagpur. From this point of view it would be seen that the applicants have deep roots at Nagpur. They are high ranking officers and it is unlikely that they would abscond or would tamper with prosecution evidence. At one stage, I thought that it would not be proper to release the applicants on bail because releasing them on bail may hamper the talks/negotiations going on between the workers and the Management. However Mr. Manohar pointed out that the applicants are merely the employees of the Company and they are not at all concerned with the Policy, Management and Administration of the company. So their release will have no effect whatsoever on the talks between the company and the workers. I find considerable force in this submission. 19. Taking an over-all view of the circumstances of the case I think it expedient to grant bail to the applicants. Hence the order: i) The application is allowed. ii) The applicants be released on their executing personal recognizance for Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. iii) The applicants are directed not to enter Buti Bori Industrial Area and the jurisdiction of Buti Bori Police Station and not to leave the City of Nagpur till filing of the charge-sheet. iv) The applicants are directed to co-operate with the investigating agency and to attend the concerned Police Station as and when directed by the investigating Officer. v) The applicants are directed to supply their contact numbers and addresses to the Investigating Officer immediately on their release. Application allowed.