' The present occurrence revolves around three real brothers, namely, Haji Muhammad Hussain, Hassan Din and Muhammad Din.
2. In this occurrence, Hassan Din lost his two sons, namely, Chanan Din and Amanat deceased while his third son, namely, Farzand received injuries but survived.
3. Muhammad Din was himself one of the injured victims of the present occurrence while the third deceased person of the present case was one Khadim who was the son of a real sister of the abovementioned three brothers and who was also a son-in-law of Muhammad Din.
4. Amongst the thirteen accused persons of the present case are the third of the three abovementioned brothers, namely, Haji Muhammad Hussain, his seven sons, his brother-in-law Jamal Din and his two sons and his other brother-in-law, namely, Maulvi Fazal Din and his one son.
5. The said three brothers, namely, Haji Muhammad Hussain, Hassan Din and Muhammad Din jointly owned 18 acres of land which they divided amongst themselves about 20 years prior to the present occurrence. One acre of this land, however, became the subject-matter of dispute between Haji Muhammad Hussain on one side and his brothers, Hassan Din and Muhammad Din, on the other side. As per the F.I.R., Muhammad Din P.W. Was in possession of this land and was supported by his brother Hassan Din while Haji Muhammad Hussain wanted to take forcible possession of the said one acre of land. It was on account of this dispute that thirteen accused persons as above detailed, launched an attack on the abovementioned victims of the present occurrence which caused the death of three deceased persons and which resulted in injuries on the bodies of two persons.
6. As a result of investigation, Jamal Din abovementioned who was a brother-in-law of Haji Muhammad Hussain accused; Akbar a son of Haji Muhammad Hussain and Sardar a son of Maulvi Fazal Din, a brother-in-law of Haji Muhammad Hussain accused, were found innocent and have since been discharged. The remaining ten accused persons which includes, Haji Muhammad Hussain himself, his six sons, namely, Amanat, Rehmat, Anwar, Ashraf, Sarwar, Aslam, Maulvi Fazal Din and two sons of the discharged Jamal Din, namely, Khushi and Ashiq, were found guilty.
7. Out of these ten accused persons, Haji Muhammad Hussain, Maulvi Fazal Din, Khushi Muhammad and Ashiq were released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge of Kasur through his order, dated 12-5-1993. This petition seeks cancellation of the said to the said accused persons.
8. It was argued on behalf of these respondents-accused persons that Haji Muhammad Hussain accused was saddled only with a Lalkara while ineffective general firing had been attributed to Khushi and Ashiq accused and Maulvi Fazal Din accused had been burdened only with an injury on the person of Farzand P.W. And had not caused any injury to any of the three deceased persons.
9. The parties have been heard and the record has been examined.
10. Maulvi Fazal Din respondent was allegedly armed with .12 bore gun. He had used the said gun in the occurrence in question in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and the shot fired by him had landed on the right arm of Farzand P.W. There is no hard and fast rule that the persons who were not saddled with any injury to the deceased person must be released on bail. As has been noticed above, Maulvi Fazal Din accused had been specifically named in the F.I.R. He was armed and had actively participated in the occurrence in question which had resulted in the death of three persons and injuries to two. It may be mentioned here that in an occurrence, like the present one, no concession can be shown to an accused person only on the ground that the shot fired by him had resulted only in a simple injury to one of the P.Ws. A person firing a shot with a fire- arm can be burdened with the knowledge and intention that attaches to such an act and it is just a coincident or luck of the target of this shot, that the damage caused was only a simple injury.
11. In this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in allowing bail to Maulvi Fazal Din accused, cannot be said to be a justifiable exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the to Maulvi Fazal Din accused through the abovementioned order dated 12-5-1993 is recalled.
12. Khushi and Ashiq respondents were also specifically named as the members of the unlawful assembly which had done the above-noticed damage. They were also allegedly armed with .12 bore guns and were specifically accused of having fired shots at the deceased party. It was again just a coincidence that the shots fired by them did not hit any of the victims of the said occurrence and no premium can be given to the said two accused persons, merely on the basis of this coincidence or being bad workmen. Thus, they were also not entitled to the concession of bail which was allowed to them by the learned Sessions Judge.
13. Resultantly, the to Khushi and Ashiq respondents is also recalled.
14. Haji Muhammad Hussain respondent was the cause of the entire dispute which appears to have ruined the entire family. Seven of his sons had allegedly participated in the occurrence in question after arming themselves with .12 bore guns and each one of them stands burdened with injuries on the persons of the victims of the said occurrence including the three deceased persons. It is true that he was himself empty-handed. It is also true that ordinarily persons accused of Lalkara are admitted to bail but then every case depends upon its own facts and circumstances. The sons of Haji Muhammad Hussain, his brothers-in-law and his nephews could not have mounted the assault without his blessings. He has a hand in the murder of two sons of his real brother and a son of his sister, besides fire-arm injuries having been caused to his own brother and a son of his real brother. He deserves no sympathy. The Lalkara attributed to him in the present case, does not appear to be proverbial Lalkara which is attributed to accused persons only to falsely rope in some innocent persons. There was nothing stopping the complainant party from giving a fire-arm in his hand and attributing firing to him. The accusations levelled through the F.I.R., at least prima facie, appear to be truthful. It may also be mentioned here that while three of the accused persons nominated through the F.I.R., including a son of Haji Muhammad Hussain had been found innocent, no such finding had been given in favour of Haji Muhammad Hussain accused in spite of the fact that he was attributed only a Lalkara.
15. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accusatidn of Lalkara levelled against Haji Muhammad Hussain accused was of the type which could lead to the appearance of reasonable grounds for belief that he was not guilty of the accusation levelled against him.
16. The result is that the even to Haji Muhammad Hussain accused was not a concession rightly extended to him. His bail is thus also recalled.
17. This petition is allowed in the above terms.
Bail cancelled.