PER COURT 1. This is an application for bail U/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicants have been arrested and charge-sheeted in connection with Crime No.110/2007 registered at Rural Police Station, Beed, for offence U/ss 302, 147, 148, 149, 324 of the I.P.C. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. I have gone through the investigation papers which were made available. Mr. Chatterji would submit that the applicants are entitled to bail inasmuch as they were also injured during course of the same incident and probably acted in exercise of right of private defence. He would submit that a counter F.I.R. is filed by applicant No.2 Sanjay in the same night. 4. It appears from the Police statements of Mahanandabai W/o Bhaguji Ingole and Mangal W/o Shankar Ingole that the incident occurred in the relevant night between 3rd and 4th July 2007 on account of threats given by the applicants. The Police statements of these witnesses go to show that at about 11-30 p.m. deceased Shankar, injured Bhaguji and others together went to residential house of the applicants. The residential house of the applicants is situated in the agricultural land (Wasti). Thus, prima facie, it appears that the deceased and his relatives together went to house of the applicants. It further appears that injured was Bhaguji armed with a sickle. It is stated by P.W. Mahananda and P.W. Mangal that they had gone to seek explanation regarding threats given and assault mounted by the applicants in the earlier part of the day. Obviously, the incident took place in front of the house of the applicants. The counter complaint lodged by applicant No.2 Sanjay Bappasaheb Ingole shows that deceased Shankar and others came to his house and picked up quarrel. They assaulted him and others. Obviously, it is probable that the applicants counter assaulted and caused some injuries to Bhaguji and others. It prima facie appears from the statements of prosecution witnesses that deceased Shankar had run away towards crop of sugarcane and was chased by applicant No.1 Rajkumar @ Rajendra. It prima facie appears that applicant No.1 Rajkumar @ Rajendra stabbed the deceased by means of a large knife (Gupti). The post-mortem report reveals that the back side wound was fatal and stabbing was deep enough to cause the destruction of the right lung. It prima facie appears that applicant No.1 Rajkumar @ Rajendra stabbed the deceased by means of a large knife (Gupti). The post-mortem report reveals that the back side wound was fatal and stabbing was deep enough to cause the destruction of the right lung. The other two wounds found on the buttocks were not of serious nature. Considering the role attributed to the applicant No.1 Rajkumar @ Rajendra, it will have to be said that he exceeded the so-called right of private defence and it may not be available to him because the right of private defence can be exercised only in the extent needed to quell the assailants or restrain the assault. When Shankar had ran away from the place then probably such right may not have been available. Considering these aspects, the applicant No.1 does not deserve liberty and seems to have forfeited the right to claim the same. However, the other two applicants did not cause any fatal injury as would be apparent from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As stated before, when the incident occurred in front of the house of the applicants then it is more probable prima facie that they were required to resist the aggression mounted by the deceased, injured Bhaguji and others. Keeping at back of mind the principles pertaining to right of private defence available U/s 100 of the I.P.C., I am inclined to reject the application of applicant No.1 whereas, grant the same as regards the applicants Nos.2 and 3. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. 5. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail if P.B. and S.B. in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each is furnished by them to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions. They shall not contact any of the prosecution witness and shall make no attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. The application of applicant No.1 Rajkumar @ Rajendra S/o Bappasaheb Ingole stands rejected.