The petitioners, who were arrested in case F. I. R. No. 50/47 dated 9th February, 1981 registered at Police Station Saddar, Multan under section 325/452/148/149, P. P. C. On the report of Muhammad Shafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan, resident of Chah Ramzanwala Dakhli, Qadirpur Rawan, Tehsil and District Multan have filed the present petition for bail after their prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12th April, 1981. The petitioners and their two co-accused Rafiq and Mazhar had earlier applied for pre-arrest bail and they were admitted to interim bail but later on their application for pre---arrest bail was rejected on 10th March, 1981.
2. The petitioners have contended that they had been falsely impli--cated in the case due to enmity as there is a dispute between them and the complainant party regarding tie possession of a property. The F. I. R. In the case was lodged after a delay of 24 hours for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant.
The com--plainant's version that Muhammad Akram petitioner had given a dang blow en the left arm of Rafiq as a result of which his arm was fractured, is not supported by the medical evidence. Similarly the injury attributed to Muhammad Aslam petitioner that he had given dang blow on the left leg of Rafiq causing the facture of his leg is not supported by the medical evidence because as many as three injuries were noticed by the medical officer on the leg of Rafiq at the time of his medical examination and out of these injuries, two were declared grievous. It is difficult to say which of the three injuries was allegedly caused by Muhammad Aslam petitioner.
The petitioners have further submitted that haveli in which the occurrence had taken place was disputed property and as such the question of com--mitting the offence of house trespass under section 452, P. P. C.
Does not arise. Lastly it has been contended by the petitioners that none of the offences with which they are charged is covered by the prohibitory Pro--visions of section 497. Cr. P. C. And as such they are entitled to the concession of bail.
3. The application for bail has been opposed on behalf of the State on two grounds, namely, that petitioner had attacked the complainant party despite the fact that they had been bound down by the Illaqa Magis--trate to keep the peace under section 107, Cr. P. C. For one year and further that after being released on interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge they had threatened complainant with dire consequences in case he did not withdraw the case against them for which a report was lodged by him at Police Station Qadirpur Rawan on 13th February, 1981. On 12th February, 1981 the petitioners had also threatened Muhammad Hussain a prosecution witness, in the case registered against them and he too had made a report to the Police about it on 12th February 1981.
4. I have heard the parties counsel. Learned counsel for tile peti--tioners had conceded that the petitioners were bound down under sec--tion 107, Cr. P. C. By the Illaqa Magistrate to keep the peace for one year sometime before the occurrence. According to him the petitioners have not committed any breach of bond furnished by them as they have been falsely implicated in the case. Similarly he has controverted the allegation made against the petitioners that they had intimidated the complainant and one prosecution witness in this case after being released on interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, It is difficult to determine at this stage whether the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case as alleged by them. They have been specifically named in the F. I. R. And according to the complainant they had caused injuries to Rafiq. Proceedings for committing the breach of the bond executed by petitioners to keep the peace have been initiated against the petitioner. The allegation made against the petitioners that they had threatened the complainant and Muhammad Hussain one of the prosecution witnesses after the occurrence when they were admitted to interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is supported by the copies of the reports which were made by the aforesaid persons to the Police. The release of petitioner on bail in view oft their aforementioned conduct does not appear to be proper. The fact that the offence allegedly committed by them does not fall within the prohibitory provisions of section 491, Cr. P. C. Is not material in view of the circumstances of the case. The present petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.