Bakhsha, Muhammad Nawaz, Abdul, Nasir, Zullah and Nura petitioners who along with three others are involved in a case under sec--tions 148, 302 and 307 read with section 149, P. P. C., have moved this petition for bail.
2. According to the F. I. R. The prosecution version is that on the morning of 24th May, 1980, Adil complainant, Sultan and Murad P. Ws. While on way to the Bhaini of Murad, met Umar Hayat deceased, Sher Muhammad, Allah Ditta and Muhammad who were present in their cotton field. The deceased and his companions told them that the land dispute between them (complainant party) and the accused had been settled and they had come to that field to see the crop and to plough the remaining land as the accused had permitted them to occupy it. In the meantime, the petitioners alongwith co-accused Jahangir and Ramzan came there armed with lathis, Bakhsha petitioner abused Umar Hay at and his companions and asked him as to why he had entered upon the land, upon which Umar Hayat deceased told him that he had already permitted them to take possession of the land and so they (the members of the complainant party) were there, but if he had any objection, they would quit. Then Abdul, Zulla and Nura surrounded Umar Hayat deceased and Abdul gave a sota blow on his head as a result of which he fell down. Zulla and Nura gave him sota blows hitting his legs. Muhammad Nawaz gave a dang blow to Mamand hitting his head and he, too, fell down. Then Naseer, Jahangir and Nura gave him sota blows hitting his arm, legs and chest, respectively. Thereafter, Bakhsha gave two sota blows to Allah Ditta. Sher Muhammad P. W.
Snatched the sota from Bakhsha accused and injured him and his co-accused Muhammad Nawaz petitioner. Co-accused Ramzan and Naseer petitioner gave sota blows to Allah Ditta who was lying on the ground. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner also caused injuries to Sher Muhammad as a result of which he fell down. The remaining accused except Bakhsha, injured him while he was lying on the ground.
The motive for the offence was that the land in dispute was purchased by Allah Ditta ten years prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, he shifted to Multan and obtained some land on lease there.
During his absence Bakhsha took possession of Killa No. 8 belonging to him, upon which the complainant party got a case registered against him. The matter was, however, patched up on the intervention of one Mopall Khan and the accused party had agreed to deliver possession of the field to Allah Ditta. The present occurrence took place when the complainant party came on the land in pursuance of the aforesaid compromise.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admittedly the accused party was in possession of the disputed land and a suit for possession filed by Allah Ditta P. W, was pending in the Civil Court at the time of occurrence. He further submits that injuries on the person of Bakhsha and Nawaz accused clearly show that the complainant party came to the spot duly armed and caused injuries to the aforesaid accused with a view to take forcible possession of the said land and all these circumstances indicate that the complainant party were the aggressors. He further submits that a case was registered against the complainant party but it was later on cancelled, upon which a complaint was filed in which seven members of the complainant party have been summoned as accused. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners are named in the F. I. R. And a specific role has been attributed to each of them, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. It .Is admitted on all hands that the land in dispute was in possession of the accused party. The petitioners have filed a certified copy of the order, dated 3rd July, 1980, to show that at the time of occurrence a suit for possession filed by Allah Ditta P. W. Against Bakhsha, Muhammad Nawaz (petitioners) and another in respect of the land in dispute was pending in the Civil Court. The medico-legal reports of Muhammad Nawaz and Bakhsha petitioners show that the former had three and the latter had seven injuries out of which two were declared grievous in nature. The learned State Counsel concedes that the prosecution is not in possession of any documentary evidence regarding the settlement of the land in dispute between the parties. The facts and circumstances of the case prima facie show that there was a free fight between the parties in which either party sustained injuries at the hand of the other.
Abdul petitioner is alleged to have given a dang blow on the head of Umar Hayat deceased which proved fatal, therefore, no ground for his bail is made out. The remaining accused, namely, Bakhsha, Muhammad Nawaz, Naseer, Zulla and Nura petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.