1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Atta Muhammad son of Misri, (the Applicant) is booked in Crime No,57 of 2011 of Police Station Mirpur Sakro for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 114, 504 and 302, Pakistan Penal. Code. Earlier in time Bail Application No,157 of 2011 was moved before the court below by Soomar, son of Chandaro, the applicant and Saleem, son of Yousif and by Order dated 29-8-2011 bail was granted to Soomar and Saleem but was refused to the applicant.
2. ' The facts, deducible from the F.I.R. Against the applicant, are that the complainant Achar owns agricultural land in Deh Khagan, which is being cultivated by him while the land of accused Soomar Samejo is adjacent to his (Complainant's) land. Both lands are irrigated by a common watercourse. On 26-6-2011, the complainant with his brother Mouledinom, (the deceased) and son Nabi Bux and Mustafa were irrigating their land from watercourse. Accused Soomar armed with hatchet, Atta Muhammad, Ajjo, Abdul Aziz and Saleem armed with lathies came on the land of the complainant turned the water flow to their land due to which things aggravated and upon such aggravation, according to the F.I.R., accused Jumoo instigated the other accused with the result that Atta Muhammad caused lathi blows on the head of Mouledinom while rest of the accused caused kicks and fist blows to complainant and one Mustafa. Later on this incident was reported by way of F.I.R. Under point with the police station concerned. Mouledinom succumbed to the injuries caused by Atta Muhammad with the lathi on the head and he died on 5-7-2011. Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code was added to the F.I.R. Upon such demise.
3. ' In this backdrop of the case, it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was a case of allegation and counter-allegation, as also evident from F.I.R. No,58 of 2011 of Police Station Mirpur Sakro lodged on 27-6-2011 from accused side. Therefore, it was argued that it was not clear who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon. It was also argued that there was enmity between the parties with regard to the watercourse and there was a delay of 31 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation. It was also argued that the injuries caused on the head of the deceased was never fatal inasmuch as the deceased succumbed to such injuries after 12 days of the alleged incident due to ailment and old age. The court below came to the wrong conclusion by holding that the deceased died of lathi blows caused by the applicant. It was also argued that it is a settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when there are cross Cases between the parties, it is difficult to ascertain as to which party is the aggressor and the case becomes one of further inquiry.
4. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. For the State vehemently argued and stated that specific role has been attributed with the applicant and it is specifically mentioned that he was the person who caused lathi blows on the head of the deceased due to which he died and therefore it was sufficient to show that it was because of such lathi blows that Mouledinom lost his life unnaturally.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side. It is an admitted position, also borne out from the medical report, that Mouledinom died because bf compression of vital centers of the brain, cardio respirator arrest and that the blows that were given by the applicant on the deceased's head was so hard that it caused lacerated wound (4.5 x 0.5 cm) and that the skull exposed on the left posterior of the head with the result that right side haemorrhagic caused and resultantly Mouledinom died. Since there is direct cause of death attributed with the applicant, no case for bail has been made out. As far as counter-version is concerned and the law cited on it by the learned counsel, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances was not made out and the precedents cited in such regard are therefore not applicable. The bail application is therefore dismissed.