A case under section 148/307/325/324/149, P. P. C. Stands registered against the three petitioners and two others at Police Station Sukheki, District Gujranwala. The report was lodged by Rasool Shah complainant. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That on the day of the occur--rence lnayat Shah the injured P.
W. Was proceeding on a horseback towards qSnabana, and when he reached near Chak Takku, he was suddenly attacked by the accused persons who were hiding themselves in a field of wheat.
Petitioner Manzoor Hussain was armed with a hatchet whereas petitioners Khurshid Hussain and Sadiq Hussain were armed with dangs. Co-accused Saif Shah was armed with a .12 bore pistol, and co-accused. Noor with a hatchet. According to the complainant, when Muharram and Sher Ali witnesses tried to intervene, Saif Ali co-accused fired from his pistol injuring Muharram on his chest.
Noor Shah gave a hatchet blow to Sher Ali on his head. In this incident Inayat Shah received as many as 17 injuries, one of which was found to be grievous. The injuries were caused by blunt as well as sharp-edged weapons as already observed Muharram P. W. Received fire-arm injuries on the chest, whereas Sher Ali P. W. Received one injury on the head with blunt weapon.
2. In support of the prayer for bail learned counsel for the peti--tioners submits that there was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R., that the medical examination which was conducted in this case was prior to the time of the occurrence, that Manzoor -Hussain petitioner was also injured by the other side, but his injuries have not been explained in the F. I. R.And that on the facts disclosed at the most a case under sec--tion 325/324, P. P .C. Etc., could be said to have been made out, and not under, section 307, P. P. C.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel also produced the first page of a copy of a private complaint filed by Gulzar Shah in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Hafizabad, under sections 326/149 and 148, P. P.
C., in which Inayat Shah and Muharram, the injured P. Ws. In the present case are mentioned as two of the respondents. From the portion of the com--plaint placed on record, it is not possible to ascertain as to who was alleged to have been injured, how and when. Learned counsel for the peti- -tioners has also placed on record a photostat of the doctor's report, accord--ing to which Manzoor Hussain, who was examined on 14th April, 1980, at 5 a.m. Was found to have sustained injuries, one of which was grievous.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the injuries which the petitioners and others had caused to the injured P. Ws. Were inflicted in self-defence and that it Has the complainant party who was true aggressor. Learned counsel urges that the case against the petitioners is that of further enquiry.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, after examining the police record, submitted that the investigation did not reveal that the injuries on the person of Manzoor Hussain were the result of the same incident.
6. The question whether the petitioners are guilty of any offence will be decided by the trial Court.
However, prima facie from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. a case under section 148/307/3251324/149, P.P.C, appears to have been made out against the petitioners and others At this stage from the material placed on the file, the counter case does appear to be the result of the same incident. The offence under section 307, P.P.C. Being punishable upto life imprisonment, the prohibitive clause contained in section 497, Cr. P. C. Is attracted. This bail application is, therefore dismissed.
7. This order will, however, not prevent the lower Courts from again considering the question of granting bail to the petitioners, if after recording some evidence it is found that a case for allowing bail is made out.