Muhammad Rafique Tarar, J.- Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Siddiq petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under section 307/34 P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 18.1.1989 at 10.20 p.m. Muhammad Ali first informant, his son Riaz Qamar, Nazir Ahamad son of Ib'ahim and Muhammad Arif son of SuItan were passing by octroi-post No 6, G. T.Road, Okara, when all of a sudden Muhammad Siddiq petitioner armed with a Sota and Abdul Aziz petitioner armed with a hatchet reached there raising Lalkaras that Riaz Qamar should not be spared. SimuItaneously, Abdul Aziz petitioner gave a hatchet blow on the back side of his head, as a resuIt of which he fell down, and then Muhammad Siddiq petitioner started giving him Sota blows. A dispute over a truck trolly, jointly owned by the parties, was stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the injuries on the person of Riaz Qamar were found simple in nature and on reexamination the doctor had opined that injuries No.1 and 4 could be self- suffered. It is further submitted that both the petitioners also suffered injuries during the same occurrence which have been supprerse in the FIR, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. She state that the petitioners are named in the FIR with a specific role, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have gone through the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Riaz Qamar was firstly examined on 18.1.1989 at 11.45 p.m. He had a lacerated wound, scalp deep, on left upper surface of head, abrasion on right side of head and another below it and an incised wound scalp deep on the back of head. Lacerated wound on left upper surface of head was kept under observation and the rest of the injuries were declared simple in nature. On X-ray examination no bony lision was seen, therefore, this injury was also simple in nature. Riaz Qamar was re-examined on 14.2.1989. Again, four injuries were found on his person. The learned counsel has produced a photocopy of the madicolegal report, dated 14.2.1989, which contains a note that possibility of injuries No. 1 and 4 being selfsuffered could not be ruled out. Medicolegal reports of Muhammad Siddiq and Abdul Aziz petitioners further show that they had five and six injuries, respectively. Injury No.1 on the person of Abdul Aziz was declared grievous. It is admitted that a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioners is made out. I therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Okara.