This order will dispose of both these applications of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 as well as of Dawood Iqbal alias Pervaiz son of Iqbal Khan.
2. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and Pervaiz son of Iqbal Khan co-accused who has filed separate Criminal Miscellaneous No. 581-B/82 are accused of an offence under sections 307/109/149 and 148, P.P.C.
For causing fire-arm injuries to Hakam Khan, Shaukat Hayat, Abdul Karim and Ghulam Shabbir P.Ws.
3. On 3rd February, 1982 at about 12.45 p.m. Hakim Khan com--plainant and other members of his party were going in a car when the four petitioners and their co-accused Dawood Iqbal alias Pervaiz fired shots at them Hakim Khan P. W. Complainant suffered 4 fire-arm injuries, all simple in nature, Shaukat Hayat P. W. Suffered 12 injuries including grievous injuries, Abdul Karim P.W. Had 3 simple fire-arm injuries while Ghulam Shabbir had 4 simple fire-arm injuries. These injuries were generally attributed to the petitioners and their co-accused Dawood Iqbal alias Pervaiz.
4. Dawood Iqbal alias Pervaiz son of 1qbal Khan co-accused of .The present petitioners who has filed a separate application also suffered 4 fire-arm injuries which were simple in nature and in respect of which on the statement of Faizullah Khan petitioner F. I. R. Was registered against 8 persons including Hakim Khan complainant and Shaukat Hayat both injured persons of this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant party had the motive to attack because their father was murdered and persons accused of that murder belonging to the party of present petitioners had been sentenced, that a cross-case about the same incident has been registered but no member of the complainant party has been arrested by the Police in the cross- case, that no specific injury is attri--buted to any of the petitioners, that fire-arm injury suffered by Dawood lqbal alias Pervaiz were suppressed in the F.I.R. Against the petitioners which casts doubt that c6mplainant party was the aggressor, that there is a long-standing blood feud between the parties due to which the complainant party has tried to rope in ail members of the party of petitioners, that Saad Ullah and Abdullah petitioners, were not present at the spot and did not participate because they were at Multan and at Lahore on the relevant day and time, that Salim Khan petitioner is a young by of less than 15 years of age, that Faiz Ullah petitioner is a man of advance age of 60 years who was not at the spot and has been falsely implicated and that petitioners have already joined investigation but police has not come to the positive conclusion as to who is the aggressor.
6. Learned counsel for the State and for the complainant have opposed the grant of the anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It .Has been urged that in this case of daylight firing in a public place peti--tioners were the aggressors and carried out the attack in a pre-planned manner causing fire-arm injuries including 2 grievous injuries to the members of the complainant party and the case against the petitioners falls within: prohibitory clause. Learned counsel have further submitted that Salim Khan minor is of mature age and as a result of grant of interim bail police has not been able to recover weapons from the petitioners although as many as 22 empties had been secured from the place of occurrence which could not be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submit--ted that petitioners are playing hide and seek because they put in direct application in this Court when they were sent back to approach the learned Sessions Judge at Mianwali where they applied for anticipa--tory bail but did not appear on the date of confirmation of their bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has . Also submitted that Rab Nawaz, father of the present complainant, was killed for whose murder 5 persons of the party of present petitioners were convicted and senten--ced to death due to which it could not be said that the complainant had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioners. Learned counsel has also submitted that injuries of Pervaiz petitioner have been explained in the F.I.R, that blood feud between the parties is admitted, that arrest of the petitioners is necessary for proper investigation and recoveries of fire--arms and that Faiz Ullah petitioner being a man of 60 years is not a person of advance age and that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that Salim Khan is a minor of less than 16 years of age.
7. The enmity and blood feud between the parties is not denied. It cannot be concluded at this stage that only one party fired shots and the empties recovered from the spot, belong to the weapons used by either party. The recoveries of weapons can always be effected for which it is not necessary to make the petitioners available to the police in custody. Some material has been brought on record that Saad Ullah and Abdullah petitioners were at Multan and at Lahore on the day and the time of the occurrence and that Salim Khan is a minor. A cross-case bas also been registered at the instance of Faiz Ullah Khan peti--tioner against 8 members of the complainant party including 2 injured prosecution witnesses. This is a case from Mianwali district and it is probable that net may have been enlarged. In the background and in the circumstances of the case it appears to be a case of further inquiry covered by clause (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. Therefore, interim bail allowed to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 by this Court on 3rd March, 1982 is hereby confirmed against the same bail bonds.
8. It will be open to the trial Court to consider the question of cancellation of bail of the petitioners at any stage if it considers fit and proper. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.