' According to the prosecution case, Rahim Bakhsh complainant, Ibrahim decease 1, Naseeb Ullah and several others were present in the haveli of Naseeb Ullah P. W. On 22-5.1975, at about 9-00 a.m.
They were holding a panchayat to determine as to why Yaseen had stacked bhoosa into the said haveli. Rahim Bakhsh complainant disclosed in the F. I. R. That there was civil litigation between Naseeb Ullah P. W. And Yaseen over the said haveli and the case was decided in favour of Nasceb Ullah. It was alleged that the petitioners and ten others constituted an unlawful assembly after having armed themselves with revolver, rifle and guns and Committed rioting and in the prosecution of the common object of said unlawful assembly, committed the murder of Ibrahim intentionally and attempted on the lives of 14 persons by causing them injuries with fire-arms.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant party was aggressor and they had attacked Yaseen and others and caused them injuries with fire-arms; that six persons received injuries from the accused side with fire-arms and their injuries were not explained by the complainant is the F. I. R. That during the investigation of the case, Babu petitioner and six others were found innocent; that the prosecution version was belied by the medical evidence; that there were two versions of the same occurrence and case of the petitioner was covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C.
3. Rahim Bakhsh complainant clearly mentioned in the F. I. R. That there was civil litigation between Naseeb Ullah P. W. And Yaseen co-accused over the haveli and the case was decided in favour of Naseeb Ullah. According to the prosecution version, two days before the present occurrence, Yaseen had stacked his bhoosa in the haveli. Nasseb Ullah had convened a panchayat in the said haveli. Ibrahim deceased, Rahim Bakhsh complainant and several others were present in the haseil. The petitioners and others came out of the haveli of Noora and threw challenge to Naseeb Ullah shouting that they would make him the owner of the haveli. The accused party opened fire.
Babu petitioner fired rifle shot which hit Ibrahim deceased in the chest and the deceased fell down and died. Ali Mohammad petitioner fired revolver shot which hit Naseeb Ullah. Babu petitioner fired gun shot at Naseeb Ullah which hit him near the back. There was indiscriminate firing and in that firing, as many as 14 persons received injuries. The complainant explained the injuries caused to the accused party by stating that Naseeb Ullah etc. Had acted in self-defence. It was not necessary for the complainant to explain all the injuries of the accused side. No cross-case was registered against the complainant party and only a complaint had been filed. It cannot legitimately be urged that the complainant suppressed the injuries of the accused party. At this stage of the case, it cannot be said that the complainant party was the aggressor and the accused patty acted in self-defence. Fourteen persons received the injuries from the complainant side while six from the accused side. The injuries caused to the complainant party were larger in number than the injuries of the accused party. Babu although found innocent by the Investigating Officer, was challaned alongwlth other accused. His name was not shown in Column No, 2 of the challan. Specific injury had been attributed to him and the prosecution witnesses named him as the assailant of Naseeb Ullah. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is not a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed. The order shall be without prejudice to the merits of the case.