' The petitioners Basharat All and Zakir Hussain sons of Akber All Shah have moved Cr. Misc.
No,3063/B-1989 for bail after arrest in a case registered against them under section 302/307/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Zafarwal, District Sialkot vide F.I.R. No,149, dated 14-12- 1988. Similarly, Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner, has instituted Cr. Misc. No,2706/B of 1989 for bail after arrest in the same case. Both the matters shall be disposed of together as they arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. It may be noted that F.I.R. No,149 dated 14-12-1988 was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused vide Annexure 'A' while a counter-case vide Annexure 'B' under section 452/326/325/324/148/149, P.P.C. stood registered against the complainant party in the same F.I.R. At the moment both the parties are the accused in the case. In the murder case vide Annexure 'A'
Safdar Ali, Basharat Ali, Amjad Ali, Mubarak All alias Papu, Zakir Hussain, Waris Ali and Abdul Ghafoor are the accused. The two petitioners Basharat All and Zakir Hussain, were armed with hatchets and other co-accused were armed with different weapons and they are alleged to have committed the murder of Irshad Hussain on 14-12-1988, in prosecution of their common object.
' The motive for the commission of the crime is that Tanveer son of the complainant Shabbir Hussain, forbade the accused from cutting the Keekar trees in front of his house. On this, the accused opened an attack upon the complainant party. It is conceded that these two petitioners did not inflict any injury to the deceased Irshad Hussain and instead they inflicted simple injuries to Tanveer and Shabbir Hussain P.Ws. The third petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor, is alleged to have snatched away the double-barrel .12 bore gun from Irshad Hussain (deceased) and inflicted an injury with its butt-side on his right eye. Again, this injury is found to be simple. Annexure 'B' shows that Iqbal Hussain Shah, Shabbir Hussain Shah, Tanveer Abbas, all armed with hatchets, Irshad Hussain Shah (deceased) armed with .12 bore gun and Mst. Irshad Bibi armed with a brick, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly came in front of the Haveli of the complainant Basharat Ali on 14-12-1988. The accused mentioned in Annexure 'B', started abusing the complainant party and they also paid them in the same coin. It is alleged that all the accused trespassed into the Haveli of the complainant Basharat All and opened an aggression upon them. In pith and substance, this is the case of both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Basharat All and Zakir Hussain, submit that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation over a trifle. Learned counsel urge that the petitioner Zakir Hussain received four injuries on his person including one grievous injury and similarly Basharat All petitioner received as many as eleven injuries on his person. Third injured Waris Ali received as many as four injuries on his person. In all, the petitioner side received 19 injuries. Learned counsel explain that 11 injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons whereas 8 injuries were inflicted by blunt weapon. Learned counsel maintain that the accused in the cross- case have been bailed out by the leaned learned trial Court. As regards Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner, it is maintained that he cannot be said to have an intention to commit the offence as admittedly he came at the spot empty-handed.
' Learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant stale that the accused are mentioned in the F.I.R. and that specific roles have been attributed to them towards the commission of the crime. They, therefore, urge that the bail petition be dismissed.
4. The only allegation against the petitioners Basharat All and Zakir Hussain, is that they inflicted simple injuries to the P.Ws. It is found that these two petitioners have received number of injuries on their persons including grievous injuries. The contention is that no sufficient explanation has been provided by the complainant party in the F.I.R. regarding the injuries inflicted to the two petitioners.
Both the parties inflicted injuries to each other with deadly weapons vide Annexures 'A' and 'B'. It is still to be seen as to who is the aggressor in the case. This can only be done by the learned trial Court at the trial stage after recording the evidence to be produced by both the parties. At this stage, it is not possible for me to embark upon the inquiry as to who is the aggressor and who is aggressed in the case. In Allah Ditta etc. v. State 1970 PCr.LJ 666, Abaidur Rahman etc. v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 204, Muhammad Ashraf-ud-Din v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 530, Ghulam Nabi etc. v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1198, Hidayat etc. v. State PLD 1985 Lah. 201, Syed Waqarul Hassan v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 2010, Muhammad Saleem v. The State PLD 1989 Lah. 233, Shaheed-ur-Rehman and others v.
The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1003, Muhammad Akber and 4 others v. The State 1978 SCMR 7, Khadim Hussain v. State and others 1978 SCMR 146 and Muhammad Shafi v. Hakam All etc. 1978 SCMR 346, the accused were allowed bail by the learned Courts on the ground of cross-cases having been registered against the complainant parties as well. The accused in the cross-case have been allowed bail by the learned trial Court. The principle of parity also demands that concession of bail should be extended to the petitioners as well. It has been brought to my notice that despite the submission of the challan, trial of the accused has not commenced as yet. The accused, therefore, are entitled to the concession of bail. Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner, was found admittedly empty- handed at the spot. His case too is that of further inquiry. Respectfully following the judgments, referred to above, I proceed to admit the three petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs,80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal.