' Police Station Noshera Virkan, District Gujranwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with others, armed with fire-arms had launched attack on the complainant party in which Sabir Ali suffered injury on the right thigh, as a result of the shot fired by Ata Ullah, while Muhammad Ilyas suffered injury as a result of the shot fired by Muhammad Boota. The petitioners are alleged to have resorted to firing after the witnesses had suffered injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that Muhammad Boota who is alleged to have given injury to Muhammad Ilyas P.W., is not the petitioner but he is another Boota son of Saleh.
4. Bail is being sought by the petitioners on the grounds that the only part assigned to the petitioners is of ineffective firing and that they all have been declared innocent during the investigation by the Inspector/S.H.O. And no weapon of offence was recovered from them.
5. The petition is admitted. Notice shall be issued to the State for 14-1-1989. The I.O. Shall be asked to appear in person with record.
' In the meantime, the petitioners shall not be arrested, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,twenty thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.
Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhry for Petitioners. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1989.
' The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered against them and five others under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Nowshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala, on 27-10-1988, for an occurrence said to have taken place on the same day.
2. Two persons, i,e, Ilyas and Sabir had suffered injuries during the occurrence. Both the injured P.Ws., according to the prosecution, had suffered injuries at the hands of Boota son of Salehoon and Ataullah accused. The allegation against the petitioners is of having resorted to ineffective firing after the two P.Ws. Had suffered injuries.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been declared innocent during investigation has been conceded by the learned counsel for the State, after getting instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present with record.
' In the circumstances, the involvement of the petitioners in the case for the present appears to be for mala fide reasons. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to them vide order dated 21-12-1988 is, therefore, confirmed. They shall, however, file fresh bail bonds.
Anticipatory .