' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Amjad Farooq, both sons of Muhammad Ramzan, petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,314, registered at Police Station, City Chishtian, on 7-6 2006, for offences under sections 302/34/337- A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-A(v)/337-L(ii), P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts per F.I.R. Are that the turn of water of Muhammad Ramzan accused was to finish at 11-35 p.m., thereafter, the complainant had the turn of water. So, he along with his brother Allah Ditta his nephew Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Aslam went to the fields of Muhammad Aslam in order to irrigate the lands. Muhammad Ramzan, who was armed with Sota and his sons Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amjad and Muhammad Ajmal, who were armed with Kassies were present near the outlet. Exactly at 11-35 p.m. Muhammad Aslam attempted to divert the water to his lands. Muhammad Ramzan informed him that he would irrigate the land for more 15 minutes.
This led to altercation and while Allah Ditta brother of the complainant tried to divert the turn of water Muhammad Ramzan caught hold of him. Muhammad Anwar gave blow from the sharp side of the .Kassi on the head of Allah Ditta. When the complainant tried to rescue, Muhammad Amjad gave a blow with the blunt side of the Kassi on the head of the complainant. Muhammad Imran was given a blow on the head from blunt side of Kassi by Muhammad Ajmal. Thereafter, Muhammad Ramzan gave a Soti blow on the left shoulder of Muhammad Ramzan and also another Soti blow on the left ear of the complainant. Allah Ditta fell on the ground. Thereafter, the accused made good their escape. While Allah Ditta was being taken to hospital he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Muhammad Ajmal was juvenile; that Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Amjad Farooq have been roped in this case due to their relationship with Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Anwar; and that both the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed this application and has submitted that according to the documents submitted by the petitioner himself the age of petitioner Muhammad Ajmal was more than 16 years at the time of occurrence and his case was not covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. That the injury caused by Muhammad Ajmal resulted into fracture of the skull and the same was declared dangerous to life by the doctor; that the aggression of the accused is evident from the fact that none from the accused received even a scratch; that the petitioners tried to create a defence by moving application before the Magistrate that Muhammad Amjad Farooq received injuries during the occurrence but that defence was never taken before the police. This fact has not been mentioned in the bail application; that all the accused shared common intention and were vicariously liable for the injuries caused to the deceased; that Muhammad Ramzan accused had five sons and in case the complainant wanted to implicate the whole family of Muhammad Ramzan, he would have implicated the remaining two sons who were older than Muhammad Ajmal; and that the trial was likely to commence in the near future.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
6. Undeniably the accused were present at the spot for the purposes of irrigation of their lands as their turn of water extended till 11-35 p.m. According to F.I.R. The altercation took place when Muhammad Ramzan accused insisted on irrigating his lands for additional fifteen minutes. The situation worsened and led to this unfortunate occurrence.Allowed and petitioners are allowed bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousands) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. One single injury has been attributed to Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Amjad Farooq petitioners. It is pertinent to note that both the injuries were caused from the blunt side of the "Kassi" and not from its sharp side. As the accused were irrigating their lands, therefore, it cannot be said that they were armed with Kassi " {{URDU TEXT}}" rather the Kassies were taken by the accused for the purposes of irrigating their lands. Undeniably none of the petitioners caused any injury to the deceased. The injury attributed to Muhammad Amjad Farooq did not cause any fracture while Muhammad Ajmal accused was undeniably juvenile. In the circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioners need further probe and enquiry vis-a-vis offence under section 302, P.P.C. Hence, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made in the order are only tentative in nature allowed and petitioners are allowed bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousands) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.