' A case under section 307/326/364/452/148/149, P.P.C. Stands registered against the petitioners and 14 others with Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur, vide F.I.R. Dated 23-1-1988. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Din are that his son Mukhtar Ahmed had abducted one Mst. Sughra Bibi daughter of Irshad and thereafter married her. For the last 4/5 years the said Mukhtar Ahmad had come back to the village alongwith his wife and children and started living there. The said Irshad, his son and other relatives were annoyed with Mukhtar Ahmad for having abducted Mst. Sughran Bibi therefore, they wanted to take revenge. On 23-1-1988, at about 7-30 p.m., the first informant along with his sons Mukhtar Ahmad, Muhammad Saleem and daughter-in-law Mst. Sughran Bibi alongwith another were sitting in their house. All the accused armed with different weapons except Sharaf Din petitioner who was empty handed came to the house of the first informant. On seeing the assailants Mukhtar Ahmed tried to run away but was apprehended by Sharaf Din, and Dil Muhammad. Thereafter, Muhammad Din and Nawab petitioner gave Sota blows on the person of Mukhtar Ahmad whereupon he fell down. The assailants caught hold of Mst. Sughran Bibi and her daughter and thereafter started firing with their fire-arms threatening that anybody who came near them would be done to death. Irshad Ullah co-accused of the petitioner is alleged to have asked the other assailant that Mukhtar Ahmad should be made blind. Irshad Ullah and Siraj with their dagger and knife respectively, injured the eyes of Mukhtar Ahmed and then left the scene of occurrence alongwith Mst. Sughran Bibi and her daughter.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as Sharaf Din petitioner is concerned he was empty handed and has not caused any injury to Mukhtar Ahmed. Submits that Nawab Din petitioner is alleged to have been armed with Dang and has caused only simple injuries. Contends that none of the petitioners has caused any grievous injury to Mukhtar Ahmad.
Submits that the prosecution story is highly doubtful because according to the first informant so many assailants were armed with fire-arms, therefore, if they had the intention to do away with the life of Mukhtar Ahmad they could effectively use the fire-arms. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard learned counsel at length. The abduction of Mst. Sughran Bibi daughter of Irshad and litigation between the parties has been admitted. All the accused had come to the house of the first informant while arming themselves with different weapons except for Sharaf Din petitioner.
The only role ascribed to Sharaf Din is that he raised a Lalkara and held the injured in Japhha alongwith another co-accused. Since no injury has been caused by Sharaf Din petitioner, therefore, I feel that his case is distinguishable from that of his co-accused. In these circumstances, I allow bail to Sharaf Din petitioner in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Kasur.
' As far as Nawab Din petitioner is concerned he was armed with Dang and had caused Dang blows on the person of Mukhtar Ahmad as well. There are thirteen injuries with blunt weapon on the person of Mukhtar Ahmad. The contention of learned counsel that the said injuries are simple in nature would not make any difference because infliction of these injuries prevented him from running away. The offence as such is very heinous in nature because said Mukhtar Ahmad has lost both eyes permanently. In such circumstances, I don't find any ground for granting bail to Nawab Din petitioner because he was armed with dang and had also caused injuries as well. The petition for bail to the extent of Nawab Din petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.