' The present respondents with two others, namely, Sobha and Ghulam Shabbir were accused of having committed the murder of Muhammad Nawaz and for having launched a murderous assault on Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. The time of this occurrence was 8-30 a.m. On 31-7-1989 and the F.I.R. Was recorded at the instance of one Haji Mithu.
2. According to the F.I.R. On the evening preceding the day of occurrence, some females of Sarganis passed from near the Poultry Farm where A cow and a buffalo stood tethered and out of which, the cow ran towards the females on account of which, some ladies fell down. These ladies felt offended of this and instigated their menfolk after going back home. It was further alleged through this F.I.R. That on the next day i,e, on the day of occurrence, the seven respondents together with the two co-accused came to the house of the complainant party and launched an attack on them.
3. Sobha and Ghulam Shabbir accused (not the respondents here) who were allegedly armed with guns fired at Nawaz deceascd and Ghlam Abbas P.W. Hitting both of them and which resulted in the death of Nawaz. Thereafter all the seven respondents took on Ramzan P.W. And gave injuries him with their respective Sotas resulting in nine blunt weapon simple injuries received by the said Ramzan P.W.
4. Haji Mithu informant further claimed that after having been injured, Ramzan aforesaid snatched the gun from Sobha accused and gave injuries to him with the butt of his gun. In the meantime, Haji Mithu picked up a hatchet and reached the place of occurrence. Taj Muhammad and Abdul R hman who happened to be in the house of the informant also picked up Sot s from the courtyard of the informant's house and these four then attacked the assailants and this is how the injuries received by seven of the accused person , including the six respondents are explained. It is further alleged that Mithu and Yousaf respondents were overpowered at the spot and were handed over to the police when they arrived there.
5. The defense admits that their females were attacked by a cow of the deceased party while they were passing from near the house of the informant's party. It is also admitted by the accused party that these females came back home and informed the menfolk at which Faiz Muhammad respondent went to the house of Haji Mithu informant and Ramzan injured P.W., at which some altercation ensued and Faiz Muhammad respondent beat up these two. They further claimed that on the day of occurrence, Mithu and Yousaf respondents were passing from near the house of Haji Mithu informant and Ramzan P.W., on a motor-cycle when the two were attacked and were tied up.
Mithu respondent was carrying his licensed gun which was also snatched by the informant party. It is further claimed that on learning that Mithu and Yousaf respondents had been detained by Haji Mithu party, the present respondents party went to the place of occurrence in order to seek the liberation of the said Mithu and Yousaf which led to the occurrence causing injuries on both sides. It is also alleged that the respondent's party had acted in the exercise of their right of private defence.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Haji Shahali of the respondents' party filed a complaint on 16-10-1989 in which the statement of Haji Shahali has since been recorded and is pending for further proceedings.
7. From the police file, it has transpired that the police had taken into possession one motor-cycle from the place of occurrence which motor-cycle belonged to Mithu respondent and which, according to the learned counsel for the respondents corroborates the story of the respondents that Mithu and Yousaf were proceeding on the motor-cycle and were waylaid by the deceased party. He further argued that the non-mentioning of this motor-cycle in the F.I.R. On the part of the deceased party shows the guilt and the falsity of the claim of the deceased party.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that all the seven respondents are specifically named in the F.I.R. They were armed with specific injuries attributed to them and further that at least, six of them were injured which was an unimpeachable evidence of their participation in the occurrence. He thus contends that the respondents are not entitled to the concession of bail.
9. Having examined the pleas of both the sides and in view of the facts and circumstances above noticed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice it to say, that I do not feel persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, this petition is hereby dismissed.