'CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioners Muhammad Ramzan, Mumtaz Ahmad, Mukhtiar Ahmad and Aziz-urRehman through the instant petition have prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No . 45 , originally registered under sections 452/148/149 P.P.C. With Police Station Jalla Arain, Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran. Later on the police have added the offence under section 337-L(ii) and then 302, P,P.C. In the same on the death of injured Muhammad Iqbal.
2. Briefly, the persecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 19-3-2009 at about 8-45 p.m., Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Sarwar, Mumtaz Ahmad, Mukhtar Ahmad, Gulzar Ahmad and Azizur-Rheman, while armed with Sotas, in prosecution of the common objection of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have trespassed into the house of the complainant Muhammad Abdullah and there they all caused injuries to them with their weapons. On their alarm, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Bashir were attracted to the spot, who rescued them. The accused, thereafter, fled away from the scene with their weapons. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had committed the theft of seven Government Sheshum trees. The complainant has informed about the same to the Guard. The accused felt annoyed over the same on that account committed the said act.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that none of the petitioners is ascribed any specific injury either to the deceased Muhammad Iqbal or injured Muhammad Ashiq. Only a general role of having given beatings to the complainant party has been assigned to them in the F.I.R.
4. Besides than this, one very important fact, which is patently available from the record is that on 22-7-2009, SMO, Rural Health Center Makhdoom Ali, District Lodhran has opined on the basis of the report of the Bacteriologist that the death of the deceased was due to heart attack to him.
5. The fact also remains that there is a cross version of the alleged incident from their side against the complainant party. It is everybody's case before me that both the parties have sustained injuries during the alleged incident and each of them has his respective version.
6. I have also been informed that both the parties in each/other's version have been challaned to the Court. So, the existence of counter version from their side makes it abundantly clear that it is a matter of further probe that which party was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon. D This petition, when is seen in conjunction with the above indicated fact in the medical report that death of the deceased was due to ischemic heart disease i.e, heart attack, their case becomes stretched into the ambit of. Further inquiry covering the same under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.PC.
7. I have been informed that formal charge has been framed against them on 17-10-2009. The prosecution side perhaps by the same intends to show that their trial has commenced and they are not entitled to any indulgence on this count. I am afraid that the case of Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585, suggests way for extension of such relief to an accused, when such may be the situation. So, this position cannot be taken E as clog in the way to grant of the relief to them.
8. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. However, I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.