JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for CBI Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for objector. Case diary is available, arguments heard. 2. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. 3. The present applicant was arrested by the Central Bureau Investigation, Special Crime Branch District Lucknow in Original Crime No. 107/2008 (New No. RC5(S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Lucknow) and 524/2008 (New No. RC6(S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Lucknow) of Police Station Harda, District Harda under sections 304, 201, 120-B and 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. There are several rounds of litigation in this case and on some occasions the matter even went to the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, for disposal of this application the facts in brief bereft of unnecessary details may be stated as follows. 5. On 5-3-2008, Sudeep Patel, Amn Jaat, Deepak Saran and the deceased Durgesh Jaat from the residence of then Revenue Minister, Kamal Patel, went to the residence of the present applicant in Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MP 04-CA-2789 on the top of which, a red light was fixed. At about 10.45 p.m., they reached the residence of the present applicant which is situated in village Devtalav, District Harda. By hitting the vehicle to the iron gate of the residence, they broke it open, entered into the residence of the applicant and after using abusive language against the present applicant, they opened fire on him. In response, the present applicant also fired two gun shots from 12 bore and .315 rifles on the other accused persons. It is alleged that due to one of the gun shots, the deceased Durgesh Jaat suffered gun shot injuries and by the second shot was one Arun Patel suffered injuries. Thereafter, the co-accused persons fled away from the scene of crime in the same vehicle along with injured dead person and reached back to the residence of Revenue Minister Kamal Patel. The present applicant reported the matter to police station Harda and Crime No. 107/2008 was registered under sections 451 and 336/34, Indian Penal Code. Another report was also lodged in the same police station which was registered at Crime No. 524/2008 against the present applicant under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The present applicant reported the matter to police station Harda and Crime No. 107/2008 was registered under sections 451 and 336/34, Indian Penal Code. Another report was also lodged in the same police station which was registered at Crime No. 524/2008 against the present applicant under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 29-12-2012, while deciding the application filed under section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, the Special Magistrate for CBI at Indore passed an order and took cognizance against the present applicant under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Against this, a revision was filed before this Court which was dismissed and matter went before the Hon'ble Apex Court and there also the SLP was dismissed. Subsequently, the present applicant was arrested. When the matter was referred to CBI, two separate crime numbers were registered there a corresponding two crime numbers were registered earlier at Police Station Harda, one was Crime No. RC5(S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Lucknow and second was RC6(S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Lucknow. CBI filed one joint charge-sheet in both the crime numbers as they both belong to the same incidence and the present accused was also arraigned as an accused along with other co-accused. 6. This present application is filed on the ground, inter-alia, that the dead body of the deceased Durgesh Jaat has not been found after the incident, it is not clear whether he died due to the gun shot injuries fired by the present applicant. The present applicant was not aggressor and he fired a gun shot only in self defence and, therefore, no case under section 302, Indian Penal Code is made out. Apart from this there is no legal evidence available against him. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI and the objector submit that in the FIR that was lodged by the present applicant, he himself admitted that he fired gun shot and bullet, hit the deceased Durgesh Jaat and co-accused Arun Jaat and thereafter, they fled away from the scene of crime and, therefore, it is admitted that he fired gun shot due to which the deceased died. So far as, plea of self defence is concerned, according to them this pertains to free this plea on the present accused which can be taken into consideration only after evidence is recorded. At this stage, the death is caused due to the gun shot that was admittedly fired by him and, therefore, no bail should be granted. 8. So far as, plea of self defence is concerned, according to them this pertains to free this plea on the present accused which can be taken into consideration only after evidence is recorded. At this stage, the death is caused due to the gun shot that was admittedly fired by him and, therefore, no bail should be granted. 8. After going through the documents submitted by the present applicant and after going through the case-diary and taking rival contentions into consideration, I am of the view that since joint charge-sheet is filed by the CBI in this case the present applicant has become co-accused with other persons who lodged a separate FIR, earlier in a joint charge-sheet in which the cognizance is taken by the order of the Magistrate, oral evidence of co-accused cannot be adduced against the present applicant, therefore, if their oral evidence is not taken into consideration then only FIR which was lodged by himself remains to be taken into consideration. This apart, admittedly the dead body of the deceased Durgesh could not be traced out. He was taken after incidence in the same Tavera vehicle by the co-accused in absence of the dead body. It is also not clear at present whether his death was caused due to the gun shot injury fired by the present applicant. 9. Taking these peculiar facts into consideration only because some other cases under section 302, Indian Penal Code are pending against him in which his bail has been rejected by this Court cannot form basis of rejection of this application. Accordingly, after due consideration, in my opinion, this application deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes the personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- and two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. 10. He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3), Criminal Procedure Code meticulously. 11. Certified copy as per rules.