' Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No,158 registered at Police Station Naushehra Virkan, District Gujranwala, on 22-6-1985, under section 264/307/325/326/452/109/148/149, P.P.C., on the statement of Muhammad Yusaf son of Abdul Latif.
2. According to the complainant, on 22-6-1985, at 11/12 a.m., when he was present in his saw mill alongwith his brother Muhammd Ahmad and servant Rehmat Ali. Khalid Javed son of Muhammad Ghaus, came in a car along with five others. The complainant came out, on his call. Javed told him that they will teach them a lesson for moving no-confidence motion. The complainant went back and narrated the incident to his brother Muhammad Ahmad. In the meantime, Khalid drove the car and stopped at a distance of about 100 yards, where some armed persons were present in a trolley attached with a tractor. They also joined Khalid and his companions. On their query they were told that Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad was, in. All of them entered the premises of saw mill and started beating Muhammad Ahmad. Abbi son of Ghaus, gave a Kulhari blow on his left leg. Nasrullah gave a Kulhari blow on the right leg from its blunt side, Saifullah gave a Sota blow on his head Muhammad Ahmad fell down. Whereafter, Parvez gave a butt blow with his gun, which struck the eye, Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Rafiq, Siddique, Yusaf son of Siddique, Shafqat, Nasrullah son of Muhammad Khan, armed with Sotas, Yusaf son of Haider, Azam and F6.,,ir Muhammad, armed with Dangs, caused him injuries with their respective weapons. Muhammad Mansha fired a pistol shot. Muhammad Yusaf son of Allah Ditta was armed with a gun. The accused armed with Sotas were causing injuries, the accused armed with fire-arms continued firing, saying that if anybody came near them, they would kill him.
' Motive for the occurrence was that on 3-6-1985, Muhammad Ahmad had got moved a no- confidence motion against Rehmat Ali, Chairman. The other motive was that in a case registered under the Hudood petitioners might have been involved due to enmity. As such, I feel that a case for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, granted by this Court vide order, dated 15-7-1985. Is made out. The interim pre-arrest bail, is therefore, confirmed, subject to the order that the petitioners shall file fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.