' Brief facts of the case are that on 15-5-1995 Arshad Mahmood lodged report in the Police Station Dhudial District Chakwal. On his report case F.I.R. No,50 under sections 302, 324, 337-F, 148/149, P.P.C.
Was registered on the same day against the accused. There are six accused in the case namely Sarfraz and Muhammad Feroze, the present petitioners; Muhammad Javid, Iftikhar Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal and Naveed Abbas. Both the present petitioners were armed with hatchets and their co-accused were also armed with fire weapons and other deadly weapons. The allegation against the accused is that they committed murder of Ghulam Raza. Ghulam Raza received seven injuries, out of which one was in front of the neck and there was an exit wound. This injury was attributed to Muhammad Javid co-accused who is not petitioner before the Court. According to the learned counsel for the complainant description of the remaining injuries is that there was a lacerated wound on the head of the deceased. One injury on the back side of the chest. One injury on the left shoulder. One injury on the right cheek and one injury on the back side on the right hand of the deceased. According to him injury No,7 was attributed to Iftikhar Hussain co-accused and rest of the injuries were not specifically mentioned/attributed to any one as far as the F.I.R. Is concerned. There was another injured Rashid Mahmood, who received six injuries which were attributed to Muhammad Iqbal, Naveed and Iftikhar Co-accused. Similarly Pervaiz Akhtar was also injured in this case who received seven injuries which were attributed to Iftikhar Hussain, Naveed Abbas and Muhammad Iqbal. One injury in front of the chest was attributed to Sarfraz petitioner and one sharp edge head injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to Feroze.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail for the petitioners on the grounds that Sarfraz has not been attributed any injury to the deceased. He has been allegedly attributed only one injury to Pervaiz which was caused with blunt weapon simple in nature. The injury on the head of Ghulam Raza deceased was attributed to Feroz but this too was simple in nature. He further submits that Sarfraz is an old patient. His right shoulder is frozen and he is unable to perform any work with right hand due to deformity of fingers and painful shoulder. He is suffering from this condition since prior to the alleged occurrence. He prays that this petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail, even on this ground of ill health. Learned counsel further submits that Feroz petitioner is an old man of 75 years with poor physique and general Hygenic condition. He has placed on record a certificate issued by the Medical Officer, District Jhelum, wherein it is written that patient complains of haemoturia and difficult breathing. He stated that clinically it seems to be case of cardiac asthemia due to enlargement of the heart.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by the counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition. They contend that the petitioners' name have been mentioned in the F.I.R. There is no delay in lodging the report. It is day light occurrence witnessed by the eye-witnesses. Motive is also mentioned in the F.I.R. The role attributed to the petitioners/accused is specific. Feroz inflicted injury on the head of the deceased. While Sarfraz petitioner/accused inflicted injury on the chest of Pervaiz Akhtar P.W. They stated that medical report regarding physique of the petitioners do not show the ailment of the like nature on which basis the petitioners may be granted bail.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. As far as the case of Sarfraz is concerned, he is attributed only one simple injury on the person of Pervaiz Akhtar P.W. Besides this he has unsound physique, especially his right shoulder and hand. His participation in the alleged occurrence and inflicting injury with weapon of offence, needs specific evidence and material on record. In view of the above, he is granted bail in the suit of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. As far as the case of Feroz is concern, as per contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, he is the principal accused of the occurrence. On his instance this occurrence had taken place. He, with his weapon of offence caused injury on the person of the deceased. In view of the above, I see no merit for grant of bail in his case. As such, bail petition to his extent is dismissed.