ORDER KHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- On 16.4.1994 at Police Station A-Division Sheikhupura a case u/S. 302/34, PPC was registered against Ishaque Masih, Imran Masih, Boota Masih and Javed Masih accused at the instance of Sharif Masih complainant. It was alleged that on 14.4.1994 an altercation took place between Javed Masih accused and Sohail Masih deceased the son of the complainant over the parking of the former's tonga in front of the latter's house. Javed Masih went away extending threats that he would take revenge. On 16.4.1994 the aforesaid Javed again brought his tonga and parked it in front of the house of the complainant. His co-accused were with him. When the deceased raised objection Javed Masih armed with soti, Ishaque Masih and Imran Masih armed with Chhuris and Boota Masih armed with sota caught hold of Sohail deceased. Boota accused raised a lalkara exhorting his co-accused to kill the deceased, whereafter Ishaque accused inflicted a chhuri blow which hit the deceased on his left chest. Imran Masih accused also inflicted a chhuri blow on the deceased which hit him on the left side of his Forehead. On receiving the said injuries Sohail deceased ran to the roof of the house through stairs and fell down unconscious. The accused ran away. The deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured state where he died.
2. Imran Masih accused, petitioner herein, who was arrested on 20.4.1994, has applied for his bail.
3. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the house of Boota accused was in front of the house of the complainant and that the deceased used to tease the daughter of Boota aforesaid, whereupon her brother Ishaque accused asked him to refrain from indulging in that undersirable activity and that when the deceased refused to do so the said Ishaque went to the roof of the house of the complainant where he had an altercation with the deceased resulting in injuries to the latter. He further maintained that the injury attributed to the petitioner had not contributed to the death of the deceased and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. The version which the learned counsel for the petitioner has narrated before me does not find any mention in the Zimnis recorded by the investigating agency and thus it does not get any support from the record. According to the postmortem examination report the deceased had suffered two injuries with sharp- edged weapon, one was located on the left side of his forehead while the other was located on his chest. According to the opinion of the Medical Officer both" the injuries collectively and the injury on the chest individually were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this view of the matter it could not be said that the injury attributed to the petitioner had not contributed towards the death of the deceased.
7. The petitioner is named in the FIR, specific role has been attributed to him, he had actually participated in the occurrence and inflicted an injury oh the deceased with a lethal weapon on a vital part of his body. There, therefore, is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the offence charged against him. His bail application is dismissed.