Both/ these bail applications have arisen out of the same incident, hence for the sake of convenience they are being disposed of together.
2. This unfortunate incident is a sequel to a petty quarrel between two boys, one, namely, Ali Akbar belonging to members of Sheedi caste and the other, namely, Ibrahim, belonging to members of Bhail caste. It is alleged that on 12-1-1992 at about 8-30 a.m. Near the Otak of Qasim Sheedi there was a sudden flare pup resulting into a free; fight in which Dodo, Bahadur Ali, Muhammad Bheero, Ali Akbar and Nooro sustained Lathis and hatchets blows from the side of Sheedi tribe, while Peer Muhammad, Ismail, Ali Murad, Ahmad, Ameer Ali, Rasool Bux and Ibrahim received injuries from the side of Bhail tribe by means of Lathis and hatchets. Nooro from the side of Sheedis succumbed to his injuries while injuries suffered by other persons from his side were certified as simple. One of the injuries received by Peer Muhammad by means of hatchet from the side of Bhails was certified as grievous, while the injuries sustained by rest of the persons from his side were simple in nature. On the same day Dodo Sheedi lodged F.I.R. Against Ismail and others at Chohar Jamali Police Post, (Crime No.1 of 1992, Ladiyun Police Station) at 10 a.m. Which was registered for the offence under section 147/148/323/ 324/504/337-D/337-F/149, P.P.C. The counter-report lodged by Peer Muhammad Bhail was registered at the same police post at 10-30 a.m. For the offence under section 147/148/323/24/337-D, 337-F/149, P.P.C. (Crime No.2 of 1992, Ladiyun Police Station). After usual investigation the police challaned both the parties. Both the groups applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge Thatta, who refused bail to all the accused persons except accused Muhammad (Crime No.2 of 1992, Ladiyun Police Station). It is in these circumstances that accused persons in both the cases have applied for bail before this Court. By short orders dated 9-3-1992 and 12-3-1992 the accused in both the cases were allowed bail and this order would furnish the detailed reasons.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective applicants and Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned A.A.-G. For the State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to all the applicants in both the cases.
4. The perusal of the record shows that the incident took place all of a sudden with no previous hostility between the parties. The injuries sustained by Dodo, Bahadur Ali, Muhammad, Bhero and Ali Akbar from the side of Sheedis (Crime No.1 of 1992) are simple. One of the accused involved in this crime, namely, Ismail who was armed with a gun did not use it to cause injuries to any of the persons from opposite group. It was unfortunate that one of the injuries inflicted to deceased Nooro by means of blunt weapon proved to be fatal, otherwise the circumstances mentioned above do not show that the applicants (Criminal Bail Application No.132 of 1992), had any intention to commit his murder. The element of premeditation is entirely lacking in this case and in a free fight of this nature bail is normally allowed to persons who are not responsible for causing fatal injury. The identity of the assailant or assailants who caused fatal blow to deceased Nooro is, however, not established and it is doubtful as to who amongst the applicants (Criminal Bail Application No.132 of 1992) caused the death of Nooro. It was obviously for this reason that the learned A.A.-G. Following the rule laid down by the superior Courts that benefit of doubt even for limited purpose of bail is to be extended to accused persons, has conceded to the grant of bail to all these applicants. In recent years the scope of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the matter of granting bail to accused has been much widened and as observed by the Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand reported in AIR 1977 SC 2447, the basic rule is bail and not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of thwarting the course of justice by accused Accordingly bail is allowed to applicants Ismail, Amb, Ghulam Hussain, Amir, Ibrahim, Natho, Ali Muhammad and Akan in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. Applicants Dodo and 4 others (Criminal Bail Application No.156 of 1992) who are detained in Crime No. 2 of 1992, are involved in bailable offcrices, except the offence under section 337-D, P.P.C., as amended. It is alleged that one of injuries sustained by injured Pir Muhammad by means of sharp-cutting weapon is grievous as there was fracture of left upper and of forearm. There is, however, no indication in the medical certificate that the bone was cut through and through and unless that be so the injury cannot be said to be grievous. If any authority is needed the case of Asmatullah v. The State reported in PLD 1961 Lah. 506, may be cited with advantage.
6. Having regard to the above position, coupled with the concession extended by learned A.A.-G., I allow bail to applicants Dodo, Bahadur Ali, Ali Akbar, Bhiro and Amir Ali (Criminal Bail Application No.156 of 1992) in the sum of Rs.40,000 each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./I-198/K