11. Applicants who have applied for bail are being tried for offences under sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 506, 147, 148 and 143, P. P. C. It is the case of the prosecution that in all 14 accused persons have committed the offences alleged above and made use of weapons causing injuries to as many as 10 persons in the result whereof Abdul Karim and Anwar died and other 8 eye-witnesses sustained injuries. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 21st June, 1981 at 8-30 a m. And the place of incident is shown as near the land of Mohammad Hussain, who is injured himself, F.I.R. Is lodged on the same day at 10-30 a.m. At Police Station, Sanghar. According to the F. I. R. Dur Mohammad Allah Warayo, Noor Mohammad and Misri were armed with guns, Arbab and Ghulam Mohammad were armed with pistols, Chhutto, Bachal, Yousuf and Sodho were armed with hatchets and Karimdino, Ismail, Ghulam Hussain and Ashraf were armed with lathis. It is further specifically alleged in F.I.R.
1. That deceased Abdul Karim was fired at by Dur Mohammad and deceased Anwar was fired at by Allah Warayo and additionally deceased Anwar was also given a hatchet blow by Chhutto on the head. Suleman complainant is alleged to have been given injuries by Ghulam Mohammad who fired at him, Nazar Mohammad is alleged to have been given injuries by, accused Yousuf, Sodho, Ashraf and Ghulam Hussain. Ghulam Hussain son of Sultan is alleged to have been given injuries by Karimdino and Ghulam Hussain son of Chiragdin has sustained four injuries attributed to three accused namely Ismail, Ghulam Hussain and Ashraf. P. W. Ismail is further alleged to have sustained injuries caused by Arbab as a result of pistol shots. Medical evidence available on the record indicates that deceased Abdul Karim had sustained one fire-arm injury, two lacerated wounds and one contusion. Deceased Anwar, who died in hospital subsequently on 28th June, 1981 sustained one lacerated wound and two fire-arm injuries. Out of the eight injured eye-witnesses one is stated to be dead and prosecution proposes to examine seven such witnesses. Injuries of Suleman complainant have been declared by the doctor to be simple in nature. These are alleged to have been caused by Ghulam Mohammad as a result of his firing from pistol. P. W. Nazar Mohammad has sustained one injury caused by hatchet alleged to have caused by Bachal which has been declared to be simple in nature. P. W. Chiragdin has sustained three injuries alleged to have been caused by four accused persons. All these injuries have been declared to be simple in nature. Injury of P. W. Ghulam Hussain son of Sultan is stated to be an abrasion attributed to accused Karimdino. P. W. Ghulam Hussain son of Chiragdin is stated to have sustained four injuries caused by blunt weapons which have been declared simple in nature by the doctor and they are attributed to accused persons, namely Ismail, Ghulam Hussain and Ashraf. P. W. Ismail is alleged to have sustained one contusion and two fire-arm injuries which have been declared by the doctor to be simple in nature. Fire-arm injuries are attributed to Arbab who is alleged to have caused them with pistol.
2. The prosecution also proposes to furnish circumstantial evidence and in that context it is stated that after the arrest licensed guns have been recovered from Noor Mohammad and Misri, two country-made pistols from Arbab and Ghulam Mohammad hatchets from Chhutto, Bachal, Yousuf and Sodho and lathis from Karimdino. Ismail and Ghulam Hussain. Hatchets and lathis are not blood-stained. It is further the case of the prosecution that five empty cartridges have been recovered from the spot. Dur Mohammad and Allah Warayo, who are alleged to have caused gunshot injuries to the two deceased persons are absconding. Accused Ashraf, who was armed with lathi is also stated to be absconding.
3. Bail plea is urged for 11 applicants on the grounds namely that two main accused Dur Mohammad and Allah Warayo, against whom it is alleged that they caused fatal injuries to the two deceased persons, are absconding and the case against the remaining applicants is' that they have caused simple injuries and none of them has caused any injury to any of the deceased persons except Chhutto who is alleged to have caused hatchet injury to deceased Anwar on the head, which has been declared by the doctor to be simple in nature. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is a counter version and F.I.R. Was filed at Police Station by applicant Arbab on the same day at 3-30 p.m. The offences mentioned in the counter F.I.R are 307, 147, 148, 149 and 323, P. P. C. According to the counter F.I.R. Three persons, namely Arbab alias Arab, Chhutto and Misri have sustained injuries. Injury on the head of Chhutto has been declared by the doctor to be dangerous. Other injuries mentioned above have been declared to be simple in nature. Injuries of these three persons are even otherwise medically proved in the main case. The version in counter F. I. R. Is that on the day of the incident five pesons; namely Ghulam Bhatti. Nazar Mohammad, Suleman Anwar and Abdul Karim came and passed through cotton cultivation of Chhutto who objected on the ground that there were his female family members but the accused persons persisted and thereupon there started the fight in which injuries were caused on both sides. It is also submitted that one of the two mashirnamas of wardat in the main case also indicates that dead body and blood-stained earth was recovered from near cotton cultivation of Chhutto. It is submitted by the counsel that as defence version is available in the counter F. I. R. Which is further supported by other material available on the record as stated above and further the question as to who was aggressor is yet to be determined it is a fit case for bail on the ground of further inquiry. In support of this proposition the learned counsel has cited 1972 SCMR 682, 1978 SCMR 346 and 1977 P Cr. L J 575. The learned counsel for the applicants has further cited 1976 SCMR 159 in which bail has been granted to the accused persons, who were not responsible for causing fatal injuries which were attributed to the absconding accused persons and also on the ground that there was a c bunter case and private complaint arising from the same occurrence. The learned counsel for the applicants has also cited 1978 SCMR 7 in which in a murder case bail was granted to the accused persons to whom simple injuries caused to the complainant were attributed and it was held that the case of accused persons granted bail was distinguishable from the case of other accused persons who had caused fatal injuries.
4. The assessm ent of the material available on the record shows that there is a counter F.I.R. And some of the applicants are injured and there is sudden fight between the parties and it is still to be determined as to who was the aggressor hence the case falls under section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. For further inquiry.
5. Keeping in view the legal position enunciated above. I admit to bail applicants in the sum of Rs.
6. 10,000 with one surety and P. R. Each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.