On 26-4-1991 Abdul Ghafoor son of Muhammad Ramzan lodged a report at Police Station (Saddar)
Mailsi, District Vehari, alleging therein that on the same day at about 8-00 a.m. In the area of Chah Boharanwala-cum---Mauza Dhal, Bashir Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad and Allah Ditta (petitioners herein) besides Mehnga and Amir armed with `Sotas' attacked his father Muhammad Ramzan, killing him on the spot. He further alleged that during the occurrence Manzoor Ahmad, Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Nawaz son of Allah Bakhsh and Mst. Allah Wasai sustained -injuries at the hands of assailants. On his statement case F.I.R. 142 was registered under sections 302, 304, 337-C, 452, 148/149, P.P.C.
2. During the investigation the accused party alleged the aggression of the complainant party.
Mehnga accused in his statement urged that from his side Bashir Ahmad, Allah Ditta, Ghulam Sarwar, Mst. Rehmat Bibi and he himself sustained injuries at the hands of their opponents.
3. In view of his statement, a cross-case was registered against the complainant party under sections 452, 324, 148/149, P.P.C. Both the parties were eventually arrested and are being sent up for trial.
4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that they allegedly caused simple injuries to Manzoor, Muhammad Nawaz son of Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Rasul P.Ws.
According to the learned counsel, the incident resulted in two cross-cases and since both the parties are being sent up for trial, they are to be treated at par. It is urged that about 11 months have elapsed to the occurrence and it was incumbant upon' the prosecution to have completed the investigation submitted the challan and by this time the trial must have commenced but the challans are still said to be under scrutiny in the Office of District Attorney.
5. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. In the cross---version given by Mehnga, resulting in the registration of a case against the complainant party, he stated that Muhammad Ramzan had died as a result of a fall on the ground when he was snatching a pistol from his son in order to stop him from firing at his opponents and he received a push during the struggle. The medical evidence shows that Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) had received fatal blows on his head. This fact contradicts the version of Mehnga about the death of Muhammad Ramzan, the learned counsel adds.
6. From the circumstances of the case it appears that it was on account of the mischief of Mehnga co-accused that the unfortunate occurrence took place. In the cross-version he himself admitted his confinement in a room of the complainant party where he allegedly took refuge and his having been dragged out of it by the husband of the lady in whose house he had alleged earlier trespassed and attempted to commit Zina with her and had to run away on her protest. He was taken out of the room in the morning which gave rise to a fight between the parties resulting in the death of Muhammad Ramzan and in the injuries of five person from each side. The petitioners, who are co---accused of Mehnga, had in fact come to rescue him from the clutches of the complainant party but they met a strong resistance from them and in the fight that ensued, Muhammad Ramzan was killed and some persons were injured from either side.
7. In these circumstances when the petitioners and their co-accused had apparently launched a conserted attack on the complainant party, they are not entitled to the grant of bail and their bail application is rejected.
N.H.Q./B-28/L