1. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that there is an admitted enmity between the applicants and the complainant side and two of the persons mentioned in F.I.R. Have been let off by the Police and not challaned. This fact according to the learned Advocate shows, that the version given by complainant in F. I. R. Has not been totally believed by the prosecution. The learned Advocate further submitted, that accord--ing to the F. I. R., Ghulam Akbar is alleged to be declared `Kayo' by the applicants party, but narration of the incident shows, that the main attack was on Ghulam Asghar who received six incised wounds. In view of this, the learned Advocate submitted, that the motive alleged in the F. I. R. Is not established by this fact. The learned Advocate further submitted, that injuries on persons of P. W. Inayatullah have not been mentioned at all in F.I.R. And as such the facts mentioned in F. I, R. Cannot be relied upon without corroborative evidence, which is yet to come at the stage of trial. In view of this, the learned Advocate submitted that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the above bail application, on the ground that the names of the applicants have been given in F. I. R., which was promptly lodged and furthermore the narration of facts as given in the F.I.R. Have been fully supported by the statements of injured Ghulam Akbar and P. W. Inayatullah. Besides this, the blood-stained hatchets have been recovered from the applicants. The learned Advocate further submitted, that there were six injuries on the body of the deceased and eight injuries on the body of P. W. Ghulam Akbar, the incident took place in broad daylight and has been witnessed besides by the injured, at least three other witnesses. In view of this, the learned Advocate submitted, that since so far no evidence has been recorded, the applicants' application for grant of bail cannot be considered at this stage.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Hussain, learned Advocate for the complainant has endorsed the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel and has further submitted, that the complainant side filed a private complaint against Piral and Haboo who were named in F. I. R. But were not challaned by the Police and as such version as given by the complainant in F. I. R. Is correct and the specific roll of giving hatchets blows have been assigned to all the applicants both in F. I. R. And statements of the witnesses. The learned counsel relied on cases reported in PLD 1976 Pesh. 379 (?) and 1977 SCMR 27 and opposed the above bail application.
4. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the State counsel. The names of the present applicants have been mentioned in F.I.R. Which was lodged immediately after the incident. The facts mentioned in F.I.R. Are said to have been corroborated by the statements recorded, soon after the incident of injured Ghulam Akbar and P.
5. W. Inayatullah and Ghulamullah, who according to the F.I.R. Were present on site. There were six injuries on the body of the deceased and eight injuries on the person of Ghulam Akbar. The blood- stained hatchets have been recovered from each of the applicants. In my opinion, not challenging of Piral and Haboo by Police, does not ipso facio given cause or reason to disbelieve the narrations as given in F. I. R. And supported by witnesses, so as to grant bail to the present applicants. Incident was during daylight and even reaching of the complainant at wardat, so as to seethe applicants on site is possible, as the shop of the complainant is only 23 paces away from the scene of the offence, according to the mashirnama of the wardat, In my opinion, in the face of these facts, which are on record, this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants at this stage. However, applicants will be at liberty to move fresh bail application after recording of some evidence, if they are so advised. In view of this, I dismiss the above application. I have avoided to make any observations regarding certain arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants regarding motive etc., so that such observations may not prejudice the mind of the trial Court either way.