1. ' Earlier I have dismissed the petition for bail of these two petitioners, namely, Murid Hussain and Niaz Hussain, (Ali Abmad was not petitioner before me then), vide my order dated the 9th of April 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1353/B of 1975. The background of this case is that a case was registered against the present petitioners and others under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. On the 4th of June 1974, at the instance of the complainant party respecting the occurrence which took place at 8/9 a.m. On the 1st of June 1974. The F. I. R. Indicates that it was not filed earlier because the parties effected a compromise. Anyway, according to the F. I. R. The complainant party went to the tube-well of Ali Abmad petitioner in order to complain that one of the members of the accused party had teased a girl belonging to the complainant party. At the tube-well of Ali Ahmad petitioner a fight took place, It is stated that Ali Ahmad petitioner caused an injury on the head of Mushtaq whereupon he fell down and thereafter the other two petitioners gave him rota blows. The other members of the accused party caused injuries to some of the members of the complainant- party. Three persons of the complainant side were injured besides Mushtaq at the instance of the petitioners party. However, Mushtaq died on the 3rd of June 1974, and although a compromise had been effected between the parties, on the death of Mushtaq, F. I. R. Was lodged and a case was registered as explained above against the petitioners and their companions. The story of the petitioners is that they along with their companions were sitging on the tube-well of Ali Ahmad petitioner when they were attacked by the members of the complainant party and a free fight took place resulting in injuries to three persons from the petitioners side and four persons from the complainant side including Mushtaq deceased. Since the parties were related to each other and almost equal number of persons had been injured on both the sides, respectable of the village effected compromise between them. However, subsequently on the death of Mushtaq, the F. I. R.
2. Was lodged by the complainant side against the petitioners party. The petitioners story appears as cross version given by Khushi Muhammad (one of the co-accused in the F. I. R.) in the private complaint lodged in May 1975, against nine persons on the complainant side including Mushtaq deceased under sections 307/149/148/325/323, P. P. C, In the cross complaint the Magistrate has issued process against them but they managed to secure pre-arrest bail from the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, on the 21st of May 1975. As it has already been pointed out the cross-version in the private complaint is that complainant side including Mushtaq deceased attacked the accused party with slangs as aggressors while they were sitting at the tube-well of Ali Ahmad petitioner and caused injuries to Ali Ahmed petitioner, Khushi Muhammad and Jalil Ahmad co-accused. Thus, in the resulting fight where the petitioners caused injuries to their assailants, they acted in self- defence and it was in this course that injuries were received on the complainant side by Aliah Ditta, Faaal Karim and Abdul Alibi P. Ws. As well as Mushtaq deceased who died after three days. The injured persons on the petitioners side were medically examined on the 14th of June 1974, i,e, about 13 days after the occurrence. It is noticeable that the counter-version does not find any mention in the F. I. R. In this case. The medical evidence indicates that two injuries were caused to Ali Ahmad petitioner, one on the head and the other on the left arm, to jell Ahmed co-accused four injuries were caused on the head, and two on the left thigh, and to Khushi Muhammad co-accused were caused four injuries out of which two were grievous including one head injury. It is argued by learned counsel for the State that Mushtaq deceased died of the head injury stated by the three eye-witnesses in this case to have been inflicted by Ali Ahmad petitioner and that, therefore, Ali Ahmad petitioner was not entitled to bail. It was next submitted by him that so far the other petitioners were concerned they got themselves medically examined many days after the occurrence and that, therefore, there was possibility that the injuries on their persons were self- inflicted and were an afterthought having been caused in order to construct a defence and that this was the reason why they were not mentioned in the F. I. R. It was further submitted that even if the matter had been compromised between the parties, the complainant side had gone to lodge the report when the accused side attacked them on their own tube-well and as a result one person had died on the complainant side besides the injuries sustained by others. I have examined these arguments carefully. Two injuries on the person of Khushi Muhammad co-accused of the petitioners have been declared grievous and out of them one injury is on the head. The injuries caused to the other two persons on the accused side also do not indicate that they were self- inflicted. Anyway, since there are about 10 injuries caused on the side of the petitioners to three persons, there is a prima fade probability that the counter-version has also some truth in it. In fact, in the case of the private complaint where the counter-version appears the Magistrate has also served process to the complainant side. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that there were two versions in the present case respecting the same occurrence and in the F. I. R. The counter-version does not find any mention. It is submitted that it is yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor in the present case and who initiated the attack. It is next submitted that all the members on the complainant side have already been admitted to bail whereas the three petitioners are still confined in lock-up. Learned counsel further relies on Bahadur etc. v. The State (1). It is correct that there are twel {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1975,P Cr. L J 162 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' cross-versions in this case and the members of complainant party involved in the cross private complaint have been admitted to bail. It is further correct that prima facie on reading both the versions it is yet to be deter. Mined as to who was the aggressor. In that view of the matter, I allow bail to the petitioners subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. The matter is still pending at the commitment stage. If eventually they are committed to stand their trial before the Sessions Court, the Magistrate concerned would be at liberty to withdraw the concession of by this Court. This petition is disposed of. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges.