ORDBR Din Muhammad, Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Ibrahim, Nazir Ahmad and Mahmood Ahmad, petitioners have applied for bail before arrest under section 498, Cr. P. C. They are accused of an offence under sections 148 and 307/149, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 26-3-1972.
2. The allegations against them briefly are that as a result of quarrel which had taken place between them earlier in the day, the five petitioners out of whom Muhammad Ibrahim and Nazir Ahmad were armed with knives, suddenly came and attacked Khalid Iqbal complainant. The petitioners raised a lalkara saying that they would teach him a lesson for burning the shirt (of Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner) and not paying the price thereof, and that they would not leave him alive. Din Muhammad, Abdul Rashid and Mahmood Ahmad petitioners caught hold of Khalid Iqbal in a Japha, while Muhammad Ibrahim and Nazir Ahmad petitioners inflicted knife blows on him. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner is said to have given three knife blows to Khalid Iqbal complainant, two of which fell on the right and left sides of the latter's chest and the third injured his left hand. Nazir Ahmad petitioner inflicted two knife blows on the complainant which ' fell on his chest and the small finger of the right hand respectively. Some persons, who have been mentioned in the F. I. R. came up and rescued the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the injuries inflicted by Muhammad Ibrahim and Nazir Ahmad petitioners on Khalid Iqbal complainant are of simple nature and no intention of causing the complainant's death can be gathered from them. According to him if the petitioners had intended to murder him, they would have applied more force. The counsel also submitted that Nazir Ahmad inflicted only one knife blow on the complainant's chest which, according to him, minimises the role played by him. As to the remaining three petitioners, namely, Din Muhammad, Abdul Rashid and Mahmood Ahmad, he submitted that only a minor role has beea attributed to them and they are not said to have inflicted any injury to the complainant. The learned counsel has relied on Nawab,Aliy. The State (I) to urge that the case does not fall under section 307 but under section 324, P. P. C.
The learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the injuries are yet under observation and it cannot be stated as yet as to whether or not they are simple.
4. I have carefuly considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not for me at this stage to discuss whether the facts alleged against the petitioners make out an offence under section 307, P. P. C. or disclose a lesser offence (Refer Mohammad Aslam v. The State (2), However, the fact that two of the petitioners were armed with knives and gave blows with the same on the right and left sides of the chest has a bearing on the question, specially in view of the words of the lalkara raised by them.
No doubt no injuries are attributed to Din Muhammad, Abdul Rashid and Mahmood Ahmad petitioners but the allegations made against them go to show that they had aided the other two petitioners and had facilitated the commission of the offence. They are, therefore, prima facie, vicariously liable for the offence committed by Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Ibrahim petitioners.
As a result of the above discussion I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with transportation for life.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended further that the cases of Abdul Rashid and Din Muhammad petitioners are covered by the proviso to section 497(1), Cr. P. C. inasmuch as Abdul Rashid petitioners is below I6 years of age . and Din Muhammad petitioner is an old man. These petitioners A are present in Court. Abdul Rashid petitioner appears to be of about 1J/14 years of age. His case therefore comes within one of the Exceptions mention pd in the proviso. Din Muhammad) petitioner, according to his own counsel, is about 50/55 years of age and is sturdy man enjoying good health. He cannot therefore be said to be a sick or infirm person within the meaning of the proviso to section 4*7(1), Cr, P. C. (Refer Chiragh Din and others The State (1)).
6. In this view of the matter, while I accept the application of Abdul Rashid petitioner I reject the application of the remaining four petitioners, namely, Din Muhammad, Muhammad Ibrahim, Nazir Ahmad and Mahmood Ahmad. They should be taken into custody.
7. Abdul Rashid petitioner is required to furnish bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lyallpur. .
(1) PLD 1967 SC 340