' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---The petitioners have applied for post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,3 of 2005 dated 9-1-2005 under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Katha Saghral District Khushab.
2. As per F.I.R., Muhammad Aslam, Amjad, Hayat son of Sahib Khan, Ghulam Abbas son of Sahib Khan, Muhammad Sadiq son of Allah Bakhsh, Hayat son of Fateh Muhammad, Sadiq son of Sher Muhammad, Zafar Iqbal son of Sahib Khan, Muhammad Zafar, Khizar Hayat, Allah Ditta, Javed, Zafar Iqbal son of Sher Muhammad, Ghulamm Abbas son of Sultan Khan, Ahmad Khan son of Fateh Muhammad, Sahib Khan (petitioner) while armed with different weapons and Sher Muhammad (petitioner) empty-handed attacked the complainant party and caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Nawaz (complainant's brothers) as a result of which they died. According to F.I.R. Muhammad Aslam fired at Muhammad Mumtaz whereas Zafar Iqbal son of Sahib Khan fired at Muhammad Nawaz. The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Ijaz and petitioners were accordingly arrested on 8-2-2005. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that no injury has been attributed to petitioners. He contended that according to F.I.R. Sher Muhammad, (petitioner No,2) was empty-handed but during investigation Sahib Khan, (petitioner No,1) was also found to be empty-handed, therefore, the case of petitioners is that of further inquiry. He further contended that Ahmad Khan son of Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar son of Muhammad Hayat are named in F.I.R. And they were released on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order dated 29-3-2005' and the case of petitioners is identical with the case of said co-accused, therefore, they too deserve concession of bail. He has argued that during investigation it was found that accused were in possession of disputed plot but complainant party tried to forcibly occupy the same whereupon this occurrence took place, which too makes the prosecution story doubtful. He has further argued that Sahib Khan, petitioner is aged about 70 years, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused while armed with different weapons attacked the complainant party and caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Nawaz (complainant's brothers) as a result of which they died. According to F.I.R. At the relevant time Sher Muhammad, petitioner was empty- handed and only Lalkara has been attributed to him. As per F.I.R. Sahib Khan was armed with gun.
However, Rafiq, S.-I., who is present in Court along with record states that investigation was conducted by Qutab Sher, S.-I., Muhammad Afzal, S.H.O., Muhammad Ismail, S.-I., Shamsher Ali, S.H.O. And Ghulam Ali, D.S.P. And all these Investigating Officers found that at the time of occurrence he (Sahib Khan, petitioner) was empty-handed. 'As stated above no injury has been attributed to the petitioners. Even otherwise as mentioned earlier at the relevant time they were empty-handed, therefore, I find that the case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry. They are in judicial lock-up since 8-2-2005. According to learned counsel for the petitioners they are aged about 80 years and 70 years respectively. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. As such application brought by them is accepted and they are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if petitioners failed to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent to cancel their bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of any party during trial.