' Munir Ahmad, Fafeh Khan, Hayat Khan, Khalid Iqbal, Muhammad Riaz, Allah Dad, Ghulam Muhammad, Khan Muhammad, Zafar, Sher Ahmad and Muhammad Sher, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,81, dated 4-6-2003 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 11-B, of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 registered with Police Station Wan Bachran, District Mianwali. Later on, the police have added sections 337- A(ii)/337-F(iii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 4-6-2003 at about 5-30 a.m. They along with their co-accused, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have attempted the Qatl-e-Amd of Mukhtar Ahmad, Muhammad Akram, Ghulam, Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Habib and Muhammad Riaz of the complainant's side by causing them injuries.
3. The ,motive behind the occurrence is that Abdur Rehman and Atta Muhammad accused had demanded Adda Fee from the complainant, who did not fulfil their demand, on account of grudge over the same, they have committed the act complained of.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 have been ascribed only the role of ineffective firing and injury to none; that only simple injuries have been attributed to the remaining petitioners (Petitioners Nos.5 to 11) attracting offences under sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(iii) and 337-L(ii), P.P.C. Against them and these are not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that in fact the complainant party has initiated the aggression and they injured their three persons namely Sahib Dad, Abdul Hamid and Zafar; that Sahib Dad sustained as many as seven fire-arm injuries while Abdul Hameed one with sharp-edged weapon; that their injuries have been suppressed in the F.I.R.; that from his injuries the intention of the complainant party is evident that they had intended to kill him; that cross-version of their side was recorded by the police on the order of the learned Magistrate; that it is a case of two versions and it is yet to be determined at trial that who was aggressor and who aggressed' upon; and that though one of the injured persons from the complainant party is still in the hospital but none of the petitioners has been attributed any of his injuries; that the accused to whom his injuries have been attributed have not so far applied for bail; that they are behind the bars; and that they are previous non-convicts.
5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that specific role in the commission of crime has been ascribed to them; that it is a case of highhandedness on their part as they have injured five persons from the complainant side; and that the offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. However, he has conceded that cross-version from the petitioners' side has been advanced before the police and the same till date is existing there on record and the investigation in the same is in progress.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
7. The fact remains that petitioners Nos.1 to 4 have been ascribed only the role of ineffective firing in the commission of the crime alleged.
8. It has been contended from their (petitioners) side that in fact the complainant side had initiated the aggression and they had injured three persons from their side and out of them the medical examination of two namely Sahib Dad and Abdul Hameed was got conducted by the police and their medical reports are available with the petition and the same show that Sahib Dad sustained seven fire-arm injuries on his person and Abdul Hameed one with sharp-edged weapon and the presence of such number of fire-arm injuries on Sahib Dad's body had clearly indicated that the intention of the complainant party was not less than to kill him and their injuries have been suppressed in the F.I.R.
9. There are with the petition the medico-legal reports of the above named two persons from their side. The same shows that seven B fire-arm and one sharp-edged injuries respectively were found on their bodies.
10. There is no denying the fact that their injuries have not been mentioned in the F.I.R.
11. The fact also remains that counter-version from their side has been brought on record. So, it is a case of two versions.
12. The question that version of which of the parties is correct is to be gone into at their trial.
13. Their case, if seen from this angle is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into their guilts.
14. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish baal bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees on lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.