' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order, dated 4- 6-2008, vide which the learned High Court dismissed bail petition of the petitioners (in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,394 of 2007, dated 24-10-2007 under sections 302, 148, 149, 108, 337-H(ii), P.
P. C . At Police Station Sadar Bahawalnagar).
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Registered on the statement of Muhammad Anwar, complainant briefly stated is that the complainant party had a dispute with Bashir Ahmad etc. Against whom he had got a criminal case registered which led to his arrest; that after their release on bail, Bashir etc. Threatened the complainant party that since they had got a case registered against them on account of which they had to spent a few days in jail, they will avenge their honour. On the fateful night, it is alleged, Muhammad Sarwar complainant's brother and Muhammad Asghar his son went to irrigate their field and, as the complainant heard fire, he reached the spot and in moonlit and in the torch light, he along with other P.Ws. Saw Muhammad Mansha armed with a rifle, Allah Bakhsh, Muhammad Bashir, 'Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Akram, Allah Ditta, Hanif Shahray Khan and Muhammad Arshad armed with hatchets, Muhammad Aslam armed with rifle had surrounded Muhammad Sarwar and complainant's son Muhammad Asghar. Within their view, Muhammad Aslam fired at Muhammad Sarwar followed by hatchet blow by Muhammad Hanif. Muhammad Sarwar fell down whereafter Bashir Ahmad gave him hatchet blows. When complainant and the P. Ws. Tried to dissuade the assailants, they were threatened with dir consequences and they decamped from the spot while firing. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Jehangir, Yasin son of Rehmat Ali, Yasin son of Ameen, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Nasir abetted the offence. The motive alleged was criminal litigation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the case to the extent of petitioners is false; that petitioners are not attributed any specific hatchet injury; that out of six total injuries, the deceased received only three hatchet injuries; that petitioners are not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story; that they were declared innocent in three successive investigations which was endorsed by the Range Crime, Multan and that the question of petitioners guilt would require further enquiry entitling them to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned Additional Prosecutor-General have opposed the petition by submitting that petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R., that the F.I.R. Was lodged promptly and there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be falsely implicated. It was lastly submitted that although the charge has not been tramed but the trial is likely to commence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The occurrence allegedly took place at 2-00 a.m. And 17 persons were accused in the F.I.R. The deceased received six injuries, out of which three were sharp-edged wounds whereas seven out of seventeen accused were armed with hatchets. Admittedly petitioners are neither connected with the motive part of the story nor were they attributed any specific injury to the deceased. Petitioners were declared innocent in three successive investigations including the one conducted by the Range Crime, Multan.
7. In the afore-referred circumstances, the question of their guilt would require further enquiry.
Resultantly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Petitioners are admitted to bail and shall be released subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.