' Abbas, Jafar and Arif petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and others under sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 336, 379 and 436/149, P.P.C. And Article 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The facts of the case need not be repeated here as the same have been detailed in my order dated 24-6-1989 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1906/B of 1989 whereby three co-accused, namely, Muhammad Tufail, Amin and Khan Muhammad, were allowed bail in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case of the petitioners is almost at par with the aforesaid accused who have been admitted to bail by this Court, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same concession.
' The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He states that the principle of vicarious liability is prima facie attracted, therefore, all the accused are responsible for the main offence.
4. The grounds which weighed with this Court for extending the concession of bail to aforesaid co- accused were that as per Revenue Record Jafar petitioner and co-accused Arshad were in physical possession of the land; the Collector had held them to be lessees by his order, dated 19-3- 1989; according to the F.I.R. Thp members of the complainant party had taken their licensed arms to the place of occurrence and on the accused side as many as five persons, namely, Muhammad Yasin son of Elahi Bakhsh, Mst. Sakina Bibi wife of Muhammad Tufail, Mst. Zohra Bibi wife of Qasim Ali, Manzoor son of Qasim and Jafar (petitioner herein), suffered injuries; injuries of Muhammad Yasin, Sakina Bibi and Zohra Bibi were not mentioned in the F.I.R. It was, therefore, observed that the order of the District Collector and the injuries on the person of the womenfolk of the accused party prima facie, supported the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused party had acted in self-defence.
5. The allegation against Abbas petitioner is that he along with Tufail caused injuries to Naser complainant, Jafar petitioner is alleged to have given a hatchet blow to Mahmud Ali while co- accused Amin caused him Sota blows. Arif petitioner is alleged to have given Sota blows to Rehmat Ali. All the injuries of Mahmud Ali and Rehmat Ali P.Ws. Were declared simple. Naser complainant had ten injuries, out of which injury No.10 was declared grievous having resulted in fracture of lower incisor. The observations made in the order dated 24-6-1989 equally apply to the case of the petitioners. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara.