similar story as mentioned in the police statement. Therefore at this stage, there is strong reason to believe that the Applicant had genuine apprehension that if he did not go away from the spot in his car by any means, he would be attacked to death. In this view of the matter, the action on the part of the Applicant cannot be terms as any intentional act of committing culpable homicide. It is also quite apparent that he had right of private defence as mentioned under section 100 of the IPC. The facts of the case also point out that the Applicant had right of private defence which he could extend to causing death. At this stage, section 100 of IPC appears to be applicable in this case. The investigating agency has applied section 304 of IPC and not section 302. That means at the worst, the Applicant can be said to have exceeded his right of private defence. Though, of course ultimately this question can be decided by the trial Court during trial. However, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case at least for consideration of bail application, it is more than clear that the Applicant has made out a case for his release on bail. In this view of the matter, the following order is passed :
