1. ' The facts according to F. I. R. Lodged by one Dur Muhammad on 23-5-1979, at Police Station Tharushah of District Nawabshah are that he cultivates land of Wadero Nawab Kalhoro. He and his son Ibrahim on 23-5-1979 in the morning at prayer time went to collect wheat produce of Wadero Nawab Kalhoro. They loaded their bullock-cart and left for "Dera" for storing the same. When they reached near Primary School Doda Kalhoro at about sunrise time, the complainant got down from the bullock-cart for passing urine in the jungle whereas his son was going ahead with the bullock- cart. He, all of a sudden, heard cries of "murder! Murder"! Being raised by his son and he rushed towards that side. In the meantime, one Ghulam Rasool Kalhoro also arrived and they saw Abdul Wahid, Saifullah, Bashir, Ghulam Nabi, Mohammad Moosa, Abdul Rehman and Saleem by caste Kalhoros, who were armed with hatchets. They, within their sight, gave hatchet blows to his son Ibrahim on his head and other parts of his body. Ibrahim shrieked and fell down. The accused warned them not to approach them else they would be killed. They did not go near them due to fear and thereafter saw Saifullah who sat over Ibrahim and cut his neck with a hatchet and gave hatchet blows on his arm and other parts of the body. Then Saifullah disclosed that they had taken revenge from Ibrahim as he had earlier fought with him. The accused went away with their hatchets into the jungle. Dodo, Ruhullah and Imam Bux Kalhoro came on cries whom they apprised of the occurrence. They saw that Ibrahim was lying dead on the ground with hatchet injuries on his neck, head and other parts of the body. The motive has been shown that Ibrahim and Saifullah had fallen out two months prior to this incident whereupon Saifullah had filed a case with the Police in which Ibrahim and others were challaned. Saifullah was suspecting Ibrahim to be on illicit intimacy with his daughter Mst. Halima. It was for that reason that the accused in collusion with each other murdered Ibrahim with hatchet blows.
2. ' The Police after usual investigation sent up the present applicants alongwith Saleem, who has been shown as absconder to stand trial under sections 302, 149 and 148, P. P. C.
3. ' The bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who was pleased to reject it by his order dated 6-2-1980.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicants contends that there is admitted enmity between the parties and possibility of their false implication cannot be ruled out. He does not press bail for the applicant Saifullah and also distinguished the case of Saifullah and Bashir from the case of the applicants Ghulam Nabi, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Rehman and Mohammad Moosa as no recovery of any incriminating article is made from them. He therefore contends that the case of the applicants from whom no recovery is made come, within scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr. P. C.
5. ' The learned Addl. A.-G. Opposes grant of bail on the ground that it is a broad daylight incident in which all the applicants are alleged to have inflicted hatchet blows to the deceased and P. Ws.
6. Ghulam Rasool, Dodo and Ruhullah, who have implicated them supporting the case of the complainant are equally related to the accused persons and there is no reason for them to implicate them falsely. Moreover there are as many as twelve incised injuries on the person of the deceased which under no circumstances could be attributed to one or two accused persons.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and State, ' I feel that the incident has .Occurred during a broad daylight and P. Ws. A being closely related to accused had also implicated them for commission of this offence. There being strong motive against the applicants, it would be premature to distinguish the case of Ghulam Nabi and thr others from that of Saifullab and Bashir accused, particularly when there are as many as twelve incised injuries on person of the deceased. There are no circumstances of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr. P. C. In this case. I therefore, without going into the merits of the case, reject this application at this stage. al