Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. The petitioner is facing trial for alleged murder of Girdhari. FIR was lodged on the statement of Bharat Singh to the effect that on 3.12.2004 at 6.00 p.m. he was attacked by Rishi accused with Kulhari. Thereafter at 8.30 p.m. Rishi, Raj Singh, Rajinder and Raj Pal attacked the complainant side. Raj Pal fired pistol which hit Girdhari in the chest who fell down. His second shot hit Bharat Singh below the left side shoulder. On hearing hue and cry, Mahabir and Gajraj came to the spot. Rishi fired, at Mahabir, and Gajraj. Other accused also gave injuries. The complainant side took Girdhari to the Government hospital where he was declared dead. The cross version was also recorded in the form of statement of Raj Kumar to the effect that on 3.12.2004 at 10.20 p.m. he heard noise of exchange of abuses and when he came out he heard noise of firing. On reaching the house of his brother Raj Pal, he saw Girdhari lying on the ground. He also saw the complainant party causing injuries. On the basis of said version case under Sections 323, 325, 452, 148, 149 IPC was registered against Bharat Singh, Devinder; Mahabir, Gajraj, Anil and Satish. After investigation challan has been filed in both the cases:

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Raj Singh submitted that during investigation opinion of Forensic Science team has been taken, according to whom, the accident took place in the house of the petitioner side. Since the firing has taken place from the licensed gun of the petitioner and the opposite party has been challaned for house trespass, there was a prima facie case for the firing in exercise of right of self-defence.

3. Learned counsel for the State and complainant opposed the bail and submitted that grant of bail will obstruct the fair trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial will take time and the petitioner has already been in custody for the last more than seven months and injuries have been caused on the side of the petitioner also and incident prima facie appeared to have taken place in his house.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that trial is commencing on 27.8.2005.

6. Without expressing any opinion on merits, there is no ground for grant of bail as at present since trial is commencing on 27.8.2005. However, it is directed that if within three months from 27.8.2005, evidence of prosecution is not concluded, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner will be granted bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Petition is disposed of.