This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Gulzar Ahmad, Ashfaq Ahmad, Ijaz Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmad who are accused of offences under sections 302/149, 307/149, 427 and 148, P. P. C,
2. According to the F. I. R., the facts are that Mushtaq armed with a pistol, Ilyas armed with a chhuri, Saeed with hockey, Gulza: (peti--tioner No. 1) with a revolver, Ashfaq (petitioner No. 2) with a chhuri, Ijaz (petitioner No. 3) with a pistol, Iqbal (petitioner No. 4) with a revolver, Suba armed with a pistol and three others (not mentioned in the F. I. R.) came to the house of Munir Ahmad brother of Abdur Rashid deceased and fired in the air aimlessly. It is also alleged that brickbats were exchanged between Munir Ahmad and the persons alleged to have attacked the house of Munir Ahmad. It is further alleged that brick-tats were also thrown over the house of Allah Rakha, a neighbour. Later on, after half an hour, it is alleged that Abdur Rashid was fired at by Mushtaq and Suba, in consequence of which he succumbed to his injuries.
3. Counsel for the petitioners have stated that of course the peti--tioners may be involved in the earlier incident which happened at the house of Munir Ahmad but he has contended that the petitioners were not concerned with the offence, committed later on by others, in which Abdur Rashid had died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read out a dying declaration made by Abdur Rashid deceased which was duly recorded by Ch. Ghulam Nabi, Magistrate, at 10-50 a.m. On 15th May, 1979. This dying declaration is accepted as correct both by the counsel for the State a$ well as counsel for the complainant Munir Ahmad. According to the dying declaration, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure 'D' to this petition, it is clear that it was Mushtaq alone who had fired two shots at Abdur Rashid, in consequence whereof he met his death. Of course, Abdur Rashid deceased has also named another person Suba who was the companion armed with a revolver.
Other persons were not named by him. It is therefore contended by the counsel for the peti-- tioners that the deceased and the petitioners were residents of the same street and Mohallah and it was thus quite possible for him to name the petitioners as well, had they been present at the time of firing at him.
5. Counsel for the Sate and the complainant have vehemently opposed the application for bail of the petitioners and have stated that incident was one and, therefore, the petitioners are also liable for the offence which was committed-later on. No other argument was advanced by them.
6. From the F. I. R., it is clear that in the earlier, happening; according to the complainant, the petitioners were a party but immedia--tely the altercation was over. He came down of his house and-came up to the road, which means that the earlier fight was over and there was no fear from the persons who attacked at his house. Nobody was injured and it was aimless firing which might be just to frighten.
7. The petitioners are not named in the dying declaration specifi--cally or otherwise and no injury was attributed to them. Of course, Mushtaq and Suba were specifically named by the deceased, who attacked and fired at him.
8. In view of the above circumstances, I feel that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners and accordingly I admit them to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Sadar, Sialkot.
9. The observations-glade in. This order shall not prejudice either of the side at the trial.