ORDER Whereupon, petitioner raised a lalkara and exhorted co- accused. Aqeel. On which co- accused Aqeel gave a dagger blow to Muhammad Boota, cousin of the complainant. After the first blow, co-accused Aqeel caused another blow to Muhammad Boota. Co-accused Shakeel attacked at Boota's wife with his dagger and thereby, they injured husband and wife i.e. Muhammad Boota and Mst. Rukhsana who became unconscious and fell on the ground.
3. The learned counsel submits that petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. He submits that even according to the FIR, he was empty handed. He submits that one of the eye- witness, Muhammad Hussain denied seeing the occurrence. He submits that offence under section 324 PPC is not made out.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that though petitioner did not cause any injury but he shared the common intention of his co-accused. He submits that M.L.R, is a proof that occurrence took place and injured Muhammad. Boota and Mst. Rukhsana were caused injuries.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no proof on record that petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. According to the FIR, he is one who raised lalkara and directed his co-accused to launch an attack upon Muhammad Boota and his wife who were literally injured by dagger blows. Whether section 324 PPC is attracted or not, the fact remains that both Muhammad Boota and Mst. Rukhsana were caused dagger injuries supported by this MLRs.
There is no evidence of any mala fide or ulterior motive, at least on the record.
6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to extend any extraordinary concession of prearrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. The interim to the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2005 is recalled.