' Petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No,183/94, dated 12-5-1994 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case arising out of F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Ramzan and his brother Abdul Hameed went to their land in order to take their turn of water. In the meantime accused Ghulam Farid, empty-handed, Musa armed with gun, Allah Ditta petitioner armed with gun, Talib Hussain who were standing at a distance of one acre started firing on the complainant party, resultantly Abdul Hameed was injured.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false, fabricated and concocted one; that the petitioner is absolutely innocent, that it was the complainant side who launched murderous assault on the accused party in order to forcibly divert the turn of water and possession of the land from the accused party. In indiscriminate firing they also hit their own person namely Abdul Hameed. In the investigation conducted by the Additional S.P., Sahiwal. This version of the petitioner has been found correct and Additional S.P. Has clearly held the complainant side as aggressor; that in the cross-case all the accused of the complainant party have been released on bail; that no specific role has been attributed to any of the accused including the petitioner in the F.I.R., that the attribution of role to the petitioner by the injured Abdul Hameed in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Is afterthought. Even otherwise during indiscriminate cross-firing, it is impossible to note whose fire hit whom; that according to Khasra Girdawari, which is Annexure "A" Muhammad Musa co- accused was in possession of the disputed land; that the petitioner is a student of 10th Class and less than 15 years of age; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 8 months and the offence does not fall with the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the file. No specific role has been attributed to any of the accused including the petitioner in F.I.R. The attribution of role to the petitioner by the injured Abdul Hameed in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Appears to be afterthought and during indiscriminate cross-firing it is impossible to note whose fire hit whom especially at a distance of one acre. In cross-case, all the accused of the complainant party have been released on bail. It is yet to be determined which party is an aggressor. This makes the case doubtful and of further inquiry. This being the position, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.
6. Observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case.