' The prosecution case is that Muhammad Yousaf was a tenant of Khuda Bakhsh. A water channel passed from the land of Khuda Bakhsh to irrigate the lands of Noor Muhammad petitioner. About three months before the occurrence Khuda Bakhsh demolished the said water channel, thereby stopping the flow of water in the lands of Noor Muhammad. In retaliation Noor Muhammad stopped Yousaf deceased from passing through his lands on a tractor which resulted in exchange of abuses between them. It is alleged that on 5-3-1984 at 8/9 Jameel and Ramzan were passing from the boundary of the land on account of which Muhammad Yousaf deceased abused them. At this both of them went to their house and short while thereafter Jameel and Ramzan accused returned to the spot along with Khalil, Muhammad Sharif and Noor Muhammad armed with sticks.
All the accused challenged where after Jameel gave a Sota blow on the head of Yousaf and Sharif :lave another Sota blow on the head of Yousaf. Faqiria and Nazir P.Ws. Reached at the spot and rescued Muhammad Yousaf deceased. They were, given injuries by Ramzan, Jameel Ahmed and Noor Muhammad petitioners. Yousaf and Faqiria who were lying on the ground were given more blows by all the five accused with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by All Ahmed and Muhammad Sharif. It is stated in the F.I.R. That Noor Muhammad petitioner also got some injuries during the occurrence. The petitioners were arrested and being unsuccessful in their plea fer bail in the lower Court have come up to this Court for bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the petition on behalf of Jameel and Shari accused. It is contended on behalf of Ramzan, Noor Muhammad and Khalil petitioners that the allegation against them is that they inflicted simple injuries to Faqiria and Nazir P.Ws. That the injuries on the persons of accused Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan and Sharif ve not been explained in the F.I.R. And finally that from the facts of the case the common intention with the other two accused cannot be gathered. It is, therefore, argued that the case of petitioners is that of further inquiry.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1979 SCMR 24 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 161.
4. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition for bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the injuries on the person of accused are concerned, it may be observed that the F.I.R. Was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Sharif P.W. Who was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. In the F.I.R. It is stated that Noor Muhammad accused received some injuries on his person. This being the situation, the omission to explain injuries in F.I.R. On the person of the three petitioners is not material.
6. In the F.I.R. Jameel and Sharif were attributed specific injuries to the deceased. Thereafter, it is stated that when Muhammad Yonus deceased and Faqiria P.W. Fell down and all the accused caused injuries on their persons. Yousaf received seven injuries while Faqiria received six injuries and Nazir received two injuries on his person. Two injuries on the person of Yousaf and one on the person of Faqiria were grievous in nature.
7. In view of this, it cannot be said that all the petitioners did not share common intention to cause injuries to the deceased and witnesses.
8. I have gone through the cases cited by learned counsel and find that those are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly .Dismissed.