Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.- Sarang petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148,302,307 and 436/149 P.P.C.
2. In the occurrence which took place on 12.10.1987 at 8 a.m. Saru, Mirza and Riaz suffered injuries allegedly at the hands of the petitioner and his co-accused, as a resuIt of which aforesaid Riaz died at the spot. The role attributed to the petitioner was that he gave a hatchet blow to Riaz causing a minor injury on the chin and thereafter when he had already suffered firearm injuries at the hands of Theraj, Mathela and Nazir he gave him a hatchet blow on the right wrist.
Two persons from the accused side were also murdered during the same occurrence and a case was registered against the complainant party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the fact of the matter is that the real culprits in both the cases were not named in the F.I.Rs. In pursuance of a compromise between the parties immediately after the occurrence. He states that injury No.2 on the lateral side of right chest had resuIted in the death of the deceased. It is submitted that injuries No.2 and 6 were on the right chest which have been attributed to co- accused Theraj and Mathela who have since been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is certainly on a better footing. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.
4. I have examined the submissions made at the Bar in the fight of the material available on the record. The injury on the lateral side of right chest resuIted in the death of the deceased. In the postmortem report it has been mentioned as injury No.2. Injury No.6 was also on the right chesi just above nipple. The chest injuries have been attributed to co-accuse< Theraj and Mathela. The petitioner is alleged to have caused a minor injur on the chin of the deceased and thereafter to have given him a hatchet blov on the right wrist when he had already suffered firearm injuries at the hand; of Theraj, Mathela and Nazir, therefore, his case is certainly on a better footing than that of Theraj and Mathela.
A certified copy of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 223.1989, allowing bail to Theraj, Mathela and Nasir co- accused in this case and some of the accused in the cross-case has been placed on the file wherein he has observed that the uItimate report of the police was to the effect that immediately after the occurrence the parties sat together and entered into a compromise, in pursuance of which the real culprits were not named in the F.I.Rs. And were completely substituted by their allies. The police, however, attributed other role? To the accused in both the cases, like abetment and handing over of weapons etc. In view of the abvoe, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.