This is an application for bail on behalf of Sardar Khan, Nawab, Faqir Hussain, Hakim Ali, Nawaz and Irshad petitioners in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Burewala vide F.
1. R. No. 117 dated 3rd August, 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners alongwith three others in furtherance of their common object, variously armed, caused the death of Abdul Latif and Dur Muhammad deceased and injuries to Muhammad Yar, Bashir, Hameed and Ali Muhammad P.Ws. On 3rd August, 1981 after Zohar prayer time in the Chowk of Chak No. 549/ E. B.
3. As far the petitioners it has been alleged that Sardar Khan and Nawab petitioners were armed with gun and rifle respectively and they fired at Dur Muhammad and Abdul Latif deceased and thereby caused their death.
4. As far Irshad, it has been alleged that he was armed with a pistol and fired at Bashir P. W. And thereby caused four injuries including two grievous injuries. Nawaz petitioner was allegedly armed with a gun and he tired at Dur Muhammad deceased. Against, Faqir Hussain and Hakim Ali petitioners it has been alleged that they were armed with dangs and caused simple injuries on the person of Muhammad Yar P. W.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted
(i) that a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party and is being investigated ;
(ii) Ali Muhammad P.W. Of F.I.R. No. 137, in his statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Has stated that he was injured by one Abdul Aziz belonging to the complainant party and that Abdul Latif deceased was also hit by the shot fired by Chiragh of the complainant party ;
(iii) that in the written statement filed by the police in that writ petition, it has been stated that Ali Muhammad belonged to a third party and his version has been brought on the record in which he stated that Abdul Aziz had injured him and that Abdul Latif deceased was injured by Chiragh of the complainant party ;
(iv) that the dispute arise out of possession of charagah which at the time of occurrence was in the possession of the accused party. The deceased party wanted to forcibly eject the accused. In this regard an application was made to the Tehsildar and both the parties were summoned for 6th August, 1981. This occurrence took place on 3rd August, 1981.
The learned counsel have also referred to the Annexure `C' to show that the accused party was in the possession of the land and the comp--lainant party was, in fact, the aggressor one.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application and stated that the cross-case is under investigation and the challan has not been submitted so far.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 1 find that the points 2 to 4 need deep appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage. As far contention No. 1 that there are cross-cases, I am of the considered opinion that the mere fact that there are cross-cases, is not a good ground for the grant of bail at this stage when in the counter-case to definite conclusion has been arrived at. Be that as it may, the fact remains there that Faqir Hussain and Hakim Ali petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased. They allegedly have caused simple injuries to the P.Ws. I find that on the other side Nawab and Nazar also received injuries. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the question of vicarions liability of Faqir Hussain and Hakim Ali petitioners need s further inquiry. They are accordingly allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari.
7. The application to the extent of Sardar Khan, Nawab, Nawaz and Irshad petitioners is dismissed.
They may however, repeat the application in case a new ground is arisen in the due course of events, if so advised.