1. The background is that 10 persons have been named as accused persons who attacked Mohammad Nawaz deceased. A case was registered against these 10 persons under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. They were armed as follows : Qasim had a sota, Mohammad Razzaq petitioner had a gun, Ahmed Ali had a gun, Sarwar had a sowa, Jano had a sota Rehmat Ali had a sota, Ghulam had a sota, Arif petitioner had a seta, Soofi Manzoor had a gun and Faiz Mohammad had a sofa. The prosecution version is that first of all Ahmad Ali fired at Mohammad Nawaz deceased through his gun and the shot hit him on his right arm and as a result he fell down. Thereafter Mohammad Razzaq petitioner, and Soofi Manzoor both fired at Mohammad Nawaz deceased simultaneously but their shots did not hit any one. Then Faiz Mohammad gave a sofa blow on the head of Mohammad Nawaz deceased while he was in the fallen condition. Thereafter, Sarwar injured him with sowa. Then Qasim, Jano, Rehmat Ali Ghulam and Arif petitioner gave sofa blows to Mohammad Nawaz, deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel that Qasim, Jano. Rehmat Ali, Ghulam, Soofi Manzoor and Faiz Mohammad have been found innocent in the course of investigation. It is contended by learned counsel that the allegation against Arif petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused who had been found innocent gave sofa blows to Mohammad Nawaz deceased. The reasoning of learned counsel is firstly, that the allegation against him is general and all his other co-accused who were armed with sotas were found innocent, and secondly, the injuries ascribed to sofa holders were not caused on any vital part of the body of Mohammad Nawaz deceased. Respecting Mohammad Razzaq petitioner it is contended that the allegation against him is that the along--with Soofi Manzoor fired at Mohammad Nawaz deceased but their shots missed. The reasoning of learned counsel is that if Soofi Manzoor was found innocent then Mohammad Razzaq petitioner whose shot did not hit anyone had an identical case. I have seen the post-mortem report which ' indicates that Mohammad Nawaz deceased received 24 injuries in all in the form of lacerated wounds, contusion marks, incised injuries as well as one fire arm injury on the right arm ascribed to Ahmed Ali. There was only one accused namely, Sarwar who held Sowa.
2. Therefore, the incised injuries could be possibly ascribed to him. The rest of the injuries on the person of Mohammad Nawaz deceased had been caused by blunt weapon. Among the accused persons all those stated to have been armed with sofas except Arif petitioner had been found innocent. It may be correct that none of the blunt weapon injuries had been caused on any vital part of Mohammad Nawaz deceased but his death resulted from the collective effect of these injuries. I do not wish to comment on the nature of evi--dence which has so far been collected by the investigating agency against the accused persons at this stage. But in my opinion the shot of Mohammad Razzaq petitioner did not hit anyone and although be had fired the same simultaneously with Soofi Manzoor, Soofi Manzoor had been found innocent. Consequently a case is made out for bail so far as Mohammad A Razzaq petitioner is concerned. The result is that he is admitted to bail subject to .His furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lyallpur.
3. The case of Arif petitioner is distinguishable. He is named as an accused person who was armed with a sofa and gave sofa blows to Mohammad Nawaz deceased. There are many blunt weapon injuries on the person of the deceased and it was because of their collective effect that the deceased died. I am, therefore, of the view that no case is made out for bail for Arif petitioner, at this stage. His petition is, therefore, dismissed.