SHIV SHANKER, J. The applicant Ramveer son of Rajveer has applied for bail in case crime No. 126/06, under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I. P. C. , P. S. Rajpura, District Budaun. 2. Briefly prosecution case according to the F. I. R. is that Layak, the first informant and his brothers Kundan and Kunwarpal were thrashing from pile of wheat in back side of their house and at the same time, their neighbours Rajveer, Ramveer and Narendra reached there with tractor and said for thrashing from pile of wheat firstly, upon which it was refused to do the same as wanted, consequently all the three accused persons had started abusing to all the three brothers above. It was objected then all the three brothers above, were beaten by lathis, thereafter they had come to their house after running, then all the three accused persons brought country made pistol and rifle from their house and reached at the gate of the first informant, then Ramveer accused shot fire upon Kunwarpal at the exhortation of Rajveer and Narendra, consequently he sustained fire arm injuries at about 2 p. m. who died on the spot. After leaving dead body of his brother, the informant lodged the F. I. R. on 19-4-2006 at 4 p. m. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that all the three brothers including the deceased was beaten by the accused persons with lathis but no any single injury of hard blunt object was found on the dead body of deceased which clearly indicates that alleged incident has taken place in some otherwise manner. It is further contended that Investigating Officer had inspected both the places of incident but no blood was found at any place of occurrence, which reveals the place of occurrence is liable to be suspicious. It is further contended that it is case of sudden quarrel. There is neither earlier enmity nor the applicant was intended to cause murder of deceased. The applicant has also sustained hard blunt object injury in the alleged incident in his head, which reveals that some quarrel had taken place between both the parties, wherein both the parties sustained injuries. There was no repetition of fires. There is neither earlier enmity nor the applicant was intended to cause murder of deceased. The applicant has also sustained hard blunt object injury in the alleged incident in his head, which reveals that some quarrel had taken place between both the parties, wherein both the parties sustained injuries. There was no repetition of fires. As such maximum case under Section 304 I. P. C. is made out and not under Section 302 I. P. C. He also lodged the F. I. R. against family of the deceased but the same could not be lodged by the Investigating Officer because he had collusion with the family of the deceased, it is further contended that injury received by the applicant in the said quarrel has not been explained by the prosecution, therefore, his bail application is liable to be allowed in the following decisions of Apex Court which have been given below: (1) In case of Nagarathinam and Ors. v. State, reported in 2006 (2) JIC 536 (SC) : AIR 2006 Supreme Court Page 1736. (2) In case of Subramani and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2002 (2) JIC 924 (SC) : 2002 CRI. LJ. PAGE 4102. (3) In case of State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Anr. , reported in 1991 CRI. L. J. Page 1343 (Supreme Court ). (4) in ease of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1976 CRI L. J. 1736 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 (From Patna ). (5 (1) in case of Mohar Rai (in Cr. A. No. 159 of 1965), (2) Bharath Rai (in Cr. A. No. 160 of 1965) v. State of Bihar (in both the appeals), reported in 1968 Crl. J. 1479 (Vol. 74, C. N. 418) AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1281 (V 55 C 246 ). " 5. Learned A. G. A. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that he is main assailant to commit murder of deceased. 6. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 19-7-2006 at 2 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged by the first informant on the same day within two hours after covering distance of 7 kilometer from the place of occurrence, wherein he has been named. Therefore, the F. I. R. has been lodged very promptly against the applicant also. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 19-7-2006 at 2 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged by the first informant on the same day within two hours after covering distance of 7 kilometer from the place of occurrence, wherein he has been named. Therefore, the F. I. R. has been lodged very promptly against the applicant also. It has been specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. as well as statement of prosecution witnesses that he opened fire upon Kunwarpal at the house of him by the present applicant, consequently he sustained one fire arm-injury and died on the spot which is also corroborated with the post-mortem report of the deceased. It is also a case of broad day light murder. 7. The first incident had taken place in back side of house of the deceased where he and his two brothers were thrashing pile of wheat. At that time, the present applicant alongwith co-accused Rajveer and Narendra reached there and wanted to thrash pile of wheat firstly and upon its refusal, three brothers were beaten by accused persons with lathis. Kundan and Layak sustained total 5 injuries of blunt object but the deceased did not sustain any blunt object injury. It is possible that any lathi was not hit upon the person of the deceased at the first place of occurrence, although the applicant also sustained injuries on head of blunt object, which is also simple in nature. Therefore, it appears that he sustained such blunt object injury in quarreling each other at the first place of occurrence. He alongwith co-accused reached at his house and brought fire arms and reached at the house of deceased and shot fires upon the deceased, consequently died on the spot due to sustaining lire arm injuries. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that such fire arm injuries caused by the applicant in his right of private defence. Fire arm is deadly weapon and offender knows that the persons may be murdered by using above noted fire arms. When one quarrel in between them had occurred in the first place, thereafter the informant and his brothers had gone to their house, even then the applicant after taking tire arm from his house reached at the house of deceased and committed murder by causing fire arm injuries. When one quarrel in between them had occurred in the first place, thereafter the informant and his brothers had gone to their house, even then the applicant after taking tire arm from his house reached at the house of deceased and committed murder by causing fire arm injuries. Therefore, this case is not covered prima facie under Section 304 I. P. C. It is a clear cut prima facie case for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. In such circumstance, no benefit can be given to the applicant regarding sustaining the blunt object injuries on his person and above decisions cited of Honble Apex Court are not applicable due to different facts. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant. Consequently his bail application is hereby rejected. Application rejected. .