MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J. The occurrence admittedly took place and that too on a very large scale at 7.30 a.m. On 13.4.1992. Maqsood Ahmad is the lodger of FIR No. 104/92 on the same day at 9.30 a.m.
2. The counter version was given by Anjum Pervaiz S/o Muhammad Irshad, petitioner firstly on 16.4.92 and then a little improved versions to say on 13.8.1992.
3. Muhammad Irshad and Muhammad Arshad petitioners according to FIR lodged by Maqsood Ahmad were armed with Sotas and so were their two co- accused Zafar Alam and Abdul Sattar and they caused injuries to Noor Muhammad, P.W. Noor Muhammad is having only i.e blunt weapon injuries out of which only one is grievous. For i.e injuries four accused have been roped in.
4. Yasin petitioner (Crl.Misc.No.3619-B of 1993) is alleged to have fired his gun hitting Anjum Pervaiz in the leg and as a result thereof the same has now been amputated.
5. In this view of the matter both the bail petitions are being taken up together.
6. As already observed, there is evidence collected by the police implicating Yasin petitioner as well as the present petitioners in the occurrence but the contention of the learned counsel for Muhammad Irshad petitioner is correct to the extent that for causing i.e blunt weapon injuries the net has been cast too wide. Muhammad Irshad petitioner is aged about 55 years and his son Anjum pervaiz was seriously injured with the amputation of the leg with three others, namely, Zafar Alam, Arshad petition and Abdul Sattar co-accused . Young fellows armed with Sotas were present, they could very well have caused i.e injuries to Noor Muhammad. In this view of the matter only Irshad petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail petitions on behalf of Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Yasin, petitioners are dismissed.