' This is an application for grant of bail after arrest moved by Ali, Usman and Falak Sher accused.
2. The relevant facts are that a case under section 307/323/325/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Oaboola District Sahiwal against the petitioners as well as, Zakir, Dhama and Shahida. The allegations of the prosecution are that the complainant on 24-7-1988 at about 2-30 p.m. Was present in his fields when he heard fire shots. He ran towards the place of alarm and found the petitioner Ali, Zakir and Dhama armed with sticks (Sotas) while Usman and Falak Sher petitioners were armed with .12 bore pistol and .12 bore gun respectively. The accused have surrounded the father of the complainant Haji Dholi and his uncle Roshan. Usman petitioner was firing with his pistol in the air and shouting that if anybody tried to reach them he will be killed. The prosecution story goes on to allege that within the sight of the complainant Shahida accused gave a stick blow on the head of Haji Dholi as a result of which he fell down. This was followed by another blow again hitting on the head. Thereafter Zakir and petitioner No,1 gave stick blows to the father of the complainant again on head. Then Dhama gave another stick blow hitting his father on the left arm. Thereafter petitioner Falak Sher fired with his gun hitting his right leg. Then Dhama accused launched attack on Haji Roshan hitting on his right leg as a result of which he also fell down.
Thereafter Zakir is said to have given another stick blow to Haji Roshan on his chest while petitioner No,1 hit him on the back. Dhama is further alleged to have injured Gulzar P.W. The complainant and P.Ws. Raised hue and cry which attracted the other witnesses and accused left the scene on a tractor. The motive for the attack is that there was a litigation going on between the parties which ended in favour of the complainant side. This annoyed the accused. This is in nutshell story of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R. The police arrested accused, got injured medically examined and after investigation challaned all the accused. Since injured Haji Roshan died on 31-7-1988, therefore, offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that neither fatal injury to Roshan deceased is attributed to the present petitioners nor any grievous injury to any of the P.Ws. It is added that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are not accused of causing any injury to the deceased.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that it is a day time occurrence, at least two P.Ws. Are injured, the names of the accused with specific roles are mentioned in the F.I.R., which was promptly lodged and police after investigation found the petitioners guilty and challaned them.
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioners are fully implicated by the complainant in the F.I.R.
The allegations have been found correct by the police after investigation and challan against the accused has been submitted in the Court. Petitioner No,1 is said to have caused one injury to the deceased while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were armed with fire-arms and Falak Sher petitioner is said to have fired at Haji Dholi injured P.W. Hitting him on the leg. The petitioners constituted unlawful assembly in pursuance of common object and attacked deceased and injured P.Ws., therefore, their case is covered by the prohibition clause and they are not entitled to concession of bail.
' The result is that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of bail. The petition is dismissed.