N.L.Tibrewal, J. - (1.) Heard, The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the incident took place on Nov. 18. 1991 in which members of both the parties have sustained a number of injuries. The learned counsel argued that from the side of the accused party also, a number of persons had sustained simple and grievous injuries on their persons. The learned counsel further argued that the deceased Gulla had sustained three injuries and after his operation, he was discharged from the hospital on Nov. 30. 1991 and, thereafter, he died on December 1, 1991. The learned counsel argued that on the day of the incident, the members of the complainant party were in possession on the disputed land. It was further argued that none of the accused-petitioners is the author of the fatal injury to the deceased.
(2.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that previously also the members of the accused-party had tried to make a forcible possession over the land in question, which is a way for going to the field of the complainant party, as well as, of the accused-party. The learned counsel submitted that the patwari of the area had made the pathargadi of the way, but still the members of the accused-party were adamant to take the law in their hands to make the forcible possession over the land in question. According to the learned counsel, the members of the accused-party were aggressor, as such, each of them is responsible for the murder of Gulla with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
(3.) It will not be advisable to make critical analysis of the material to find out as to which of the parties was aggressor.;