The incident leading to this Bail Application by 16 petitioners occurred at about 4 p. m. On 12th August, 1972, in the Karachi Port Trust Area, where about 2000 Dock-Workers belonging to two rival Unions, namely Karachi Port and Dock Workers' Union", and the "Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers'
Union", had gathered. Earlier, there was a very serious dispute between the two Unions as to the mode by which the labourers used to be employed namely "Tandels". It was alleged against this system that less number of labourers were actually employed against the large number shown on paper. The dispute took such a serious turn that the Provincial Labour Minister and the Central Minister for Education had to intervene to save disruption of law and order in the City. It was ultimately decided, in the Meeting held some time earlier on the day of the incident, that the labourers would be taken on work by an officer of the Karachi Port Trust, and in this connection they should assemble at 4 p. m. At Machi Miani Road in the Karachi Port Trust Area.
2. In this large assembly of workers, Mr. Wazir Muhammad Inspector of the Karachi Port Trust was to distribute tokens to the persons who were to be employed as Labourers by calling out their names.
Before he could do so, Mr. Usman Raees, Office Secretary of the Karachi Port and Dock Workers'
Union tried to address the workers. Mr. Wazir Muhammad request--ed him not to do so as time was short. Usman Raees thereupon replied by shouting: "Shut up". It is alleged that these two words infuriated the members of the rival Unions and the excited Labourers attacked each other with lathis, iron-bars, knives, stones, bottles and the crockery taken from the nearby hotels. As a result, one Yaqoob son of Ahmed succumbed to the injuries received by him, and 31 injured persons were admitted to the Civil Hospital, Karachi for treatment.
3. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by one Saleh Muhammad at 8-40 p. m.
On the same day at the Kharadhar Police Station, Karachi. A counter-case was also registered. It is stated that in the case against the members of the Karachi Port and Dock Workers' Union all the accused persons have been enlarged on bail, whereas the accused who are members of the Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers' Union are yet in custody. In all 16 applicants and 5 absconders, who are members of the Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers' Union are shown as accused persons involved in the offences under sections 148, 149, 307, 302, 324, 323, 435, 427, 326 and 325, P. P. C. It may be stated that the counter-case is also registered more or less for the same offences.
4. It was vehemently urged by Mr. Munawar Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that from the admitted facts of the case all that can be said is that a free-fight between the workers of the rival Unions took place, and therefore, each person would be responsible for the part played by him, individually, in causing the injuries or committing any crime under the law. In this regard, the learned counsel further contended that 'from the evidence so far collected during the investigation, the liability for tie death of the deceased Yaqoob cannot be fixed on any of the petitioners and at best the can be said to be involved for offences that are bailable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi noticed this plea but refused the request for bail in these words:- It is said on behalf of the applicants that fatal injury given to the deceased has been attributed by the witnesses in their 161 statements to co-accused Pahlwan alias Hazrat Nooh who its au absconder and the applicants are not Accused of giving any fatal injury to the deceased or any serious injury to other injured persons of the rival group. This is a case of a serious riot and at this stage the innocence or guilt of the applicants cannot be assessed. Even if the fatal injury to the deceased is attributed only to Pahlwan it is evident that this Pahlwan could not have dared to do so if he was not supported by the applicants and other members of his party. As such, the involve- -ment of the applicants in the dispute cannot be overruled. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicants that after a fight takes place at the spur of the moment then section 34 is not applicable. 1f common intention is there, this section does apply sad a common intention can be there even if a fight takes place at the spur of the moment. Enlargement of the applicants on bail will, in my opinion, not be conducive to just trial of the case."
5. There can be no doubt that at the present stage of the case and in these proceedings the innocence or guilt of the accused persons cannot be assessed, but what is clear from the prosecution case itself is that the labourers had originally assembled at the spot for a peaceful purpose, i.e. To obtain tokens for employment. The manner in which the occurrence took place as stated in the Police-Challan is as follows:- "This one word (Shut up) infuriated and excited the labourers and the labourers of both the Unions in sympathy of their respective Unions with a common object grappled with each other. Guldad accused placed his hand on the mouth of Usman Races. Karam Khan, Shamroze Khan and Yousuf started beating Usman Races. On seeing this both Union labourers attacked each other with lathis, Iron saryas, knives, stones and bottles and crockery taken from the nearby hotels. As a result one Yaqoob son of Ahmed succumbed to his injuries in the Civil Hospital. In all 31 persons came to Civil Hospital for dressing and treatment. Sarwar Hussain, Gut Mohammad (P. W.), Gul Ahmed and Abdur Rashid received grievous injuries."
6. The learned counsel for the parties produced a list of the prosecu--petition witnesses said to be injured during the incident as well as a list of the accused persons said to be injured at the same time. Prom this piece of circumstantial evidence all that can be said against the accused persons is that five of them on whose persons injuries were noticed at the time o their arrest participated in the incident. As against 11 accused persons, namely, petitioners Nos. 6 to 16, there is no circumstantial evidence, what--ever, in corroboration of the oral word of the prosecution witnesses most of whom are not even sure of the persons who caused injuries to them. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners Nos. 6 to 16 were not even present. These accused persons were not arrested on the day of the occurrence. In my opinion, therefore, the prosecution case against the first five petitioners on whom injuries were noticed at the time of their arrest is clearly distinguishable from those of the rest. The first five petitioners can be said to be concerned with the offences with which they are charged, and since the present stage of the proceedings is not fit for appreciation of evidence, I am not inclined to grant their request for release on bail. This, however, will not preclude the consideration of their request for bail at a later stage of the case, after the prosecution evidence is recorded.
7. Ire similar situation in the earlier case between the same rival Unions I had granted bail bearing in mind the circumstances that have prevailed with me in the present case, and their Lordships of the Supreme court also confirmed this view.
8. For the above reasons, the petitioners Nos. 6 to 16 shall be released on bail on their furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000 each and on executing personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional City Magistrate, Court No. 31, Karachi before when the case is pending.