This is an application by Muhammad Aslam, Lal Zammarrud, Akbar, Suba, Daraaz and Noor Rehmat, for the grant of bail under section 498, Cr. P. C. They are accused of offences under sections 148 and 302/307/149, P. P. C. And have all been committed to trial by Syed Muzaffar Hussain Zaidi, M. I. C., Campbellpur by his order dated 29-4-1972.
2. The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the commitment order, areas follows :- On 6-10-1971 at about 9 a.m. The complainant Abdul Ghafur (P.W.11) alongwith his brother Sher Gul deceased was ploughing in the field bearing Khasra No. 1972 within the limits of village Kot Fateh Khan that the accused Lai Zammarud armed with hatchet, Muhammad Aslam armed with a spear, at d Suba Khan, Daraz Akbar and Noor Rehmat armed with sods came there, Muhammad Aslam accused attacked Abdul Ghafur (P. W. 11) with his spear but the latter caught hold of it and the two grappled with one another. Then Suba Khan and Akbar accused gave Abdul Ghafur (P. W. 11) laths blows as a result of which he fell down. Lai Zammarud and Daraz gave hatchet and soil blows to Sher Gul and in consequence Sher Gul fell down on the ground. Muhammad Aslam accused also inflicted injuries on the person of Sher Gul. Mst. Sattaran widow of Sher Gul (P. W. 7) reached the place of occurrence after hearing the noise and tried to save her husband but Muhammad Aslam and Lal Zammarud injured her. Noor Zaman son of Sher Gul (P. W. 8) also reached there and he was injured by Daraz. Similarly Muhammad (P. W. 12) and Munawar Khan (P. VA. 6) were also injured by the accused. Sher Gul succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Hence this case against the six accused.
3. The motive for the occurrence is alleged to have been originated with the application by Sadullah against Lai Zammarud accused that he was keeping an unlicensed gun. Lal Zammarud, through the help of Malik Haroon, got involved Daraz in that case. Subsequently Sadulla made a second application to different higher authorities which led to an enquiry in which Sher Gut deceased, Abdul Ghafur (P. W. 11), Sadullah and Ghulam Rabbani deposed against Lai Zammarud on 4-10-1971 and on the same day Lai Zammarud threatened Abdul Ghafur (P. W. 11) and Sher Gul deceased with dire consequences.
4. It may be mentioned that during this occurrence the accused party also sustained injuries. Apart from Akbar, Lai Zammarud and Soba Khan accused Mst. Banni Begum, the grand-daughter of Akbar accused was also injured. Askar son of Akbar lodged a counter F.I.R. Against the com-- plainant party under sections 148 and 307/149, P. P. C.
According to the defence, it was the complainant party who had attacked the accused party (the petitioners), in their fields and they had inflicted the injuries to the complainant in self-defence. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of Khizar Hayat Patwari P. W. 9, who admitted during the cross-examination that the place of occurrence is situated in field No. 1972 which was in the possession of Akbar accused /petitioner at the time of the occurrence. He has supported this by the site-plan, photostat copy of which is attached with the petition. According to the site-plan, point No. 1 where the occurrence is said to have taken place, is shown as being situated in Khasra No. 1972. Point No. 3 in red ink, from where a plough was taken into possession by the police, is also situated in the field belonging to one of the accused/petitioners is Suba Khan, in the field belonging to Sher Gul deceased is shown at a place mentioned as point No. 5, which is at a distance of A about 100 karams from point No. 1. From this the learned counsel argued that according to the prosecution evidence itself (which has not been disowned by it), the place of occurrence lies in the field of the accused petitioners and as such their version is more plausible. He contended further that the F. I. R. Lodged by the complainant party has not explained any of the injuries on the persons of the accused/petitioners, which, indicate an attempt at suppression of the true facts on their part. The learned State counsel has not been able to controvert these contentions. As a result I feel that though there may be sufficient grounds' for committing the accused/petitioners to trial, the same cannot be equated with 'reasonable grounds, for believing that they are guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. Moreover as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Amir v. State (PLD 1972 SC 277) the benefit of any doubt arising even at bail stage go to the accused. As such notwithstanding their commitment, I grant them bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant, Commissioner, Campbellpur.