1. ' This is an application for cancellation of bail, allowed to respondent No, 1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah by the order dated 9-9-76.
2. ' The case of the prosecution briefly is that the complainant Ch. Inayat Masih, who is the President of the Union of the Sweepers' community resides in the same colony, where Ashraf, Bakhsho and Maqbool, Christian by caste, reside. Maqbool plies a donkey-cart. Bakhsho is a Sweeper in the Municipal Committee. Ashraf deceased was employed in the Sugar Mill at Nawabshah. There was a quarrel between Mann and Rashid, a day before the day of this occurrence. Rashid was supported in the said quarrel by Ashraf, Maqbool and Bakhsho. The neighbourers intervened and separated the parties.
3. ' On 8-7-76 at 7 p.m. Ch. Inayat Masih and Ghulam Hyder had gone to take tea in the town. When they reached Nazir Hotel, they found Ashraf, Maqbool and Bakhsho coming fast. They were followed by Yousuf, Niamat and Meena, who were armed with knives. Manu and Shafi also joined them.
4. Manu grappled with Ashraf and caught hold of him, while Niamat stabbad with the knife on his neck; whereas Shafi caught hold of Maqbool and Yousuf stabbed him with the knife on his chest and arms. They received simple injuries. Meena stabbed Bakhsho with the knife. On the commotion, the passers-by intervened and the accused ran away. Ashraf was found lying unconscious. Due to the injuries, Ashraf died subsequently.
5. ' A short while before the occurrence, Ashraf, Maqbool and Bakhsho had gone to the same hotel for taking food and Niamat, Meena, Manu and Shafi also arrived there. There was exchange of harsh words between the two parties and as a result Yousif, Niamat and Meena chased the party of the complainant and Shafi and Manu had also tried to catch them.
6. ' Final charge-sheet was filed in the Court against five accused persons wherein, Yousif and Meena were shown as absconders. A bail application, on behalf of accused Niamat, Manu and Shafi was moved in the Court of Session and by the order dated 9-9-1976, the learned Sessions Judge allowed hail to the respondent Shafi only, and rejected the application of the other two co- accused.
7. ' Mr. Amir Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has passed an erroneous order by allowing bail to the respondent Shafi. He has contended that the offence falls under section 302/307/147/148/149, P. P. C. The evidence has not yet been recorded and the respondent Shafi was a member of an unlawful assembly and the plea of the specific individual part assigned to an accused would not be a relevant factor. He has placed reliance on the authorities reported in 1977 P Cr. L J 129 and 150 as well as FL D 1976 Kar.
8. 1068.
9. ' Mr. G. M. Qureshi, on the other hand, has argued that the order of the learned Sessions Judge was passed after careful consideration. The fact is that the injuries inflicted on deceased Ashraf were attributed to accused Niamat only. Whereas the respondent Shafi is alleged to have stabbed Maqbool who had received simple injuries on his person. Respondent Shafi was admittedly unarmed. Case of the respondent Shafi, therefore was distinguishable from that of the other co- accused. Shafi was not even present at the first quarrel which took place over the donkey of Manu, nor he was much in the picture when the second quarrel took place over tea. So far as the present occurrence is concerned, the part assigned to the respondent Shafi of merely holding Maqbool is of such a nature which is susceptible to a plausible explanation. The common object cannot be attributed to him, at this stage.
10. ' Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch appearing for the State has opposed the cancellation application and has supported the impugned order, on the ground that the case of the respondent Shafi is distinguishable. He also pointed out that the State has not moved for cancellation of bail but the complainant has filed this application.
11. ' From the perusal of the medical evidence, as regards the injuries on the person of the deceased, as well as, to injured Maqbool and Bakhsho, I find that Ashraf deceased had received two stab wounds allegedly caused by a sharp weapon. The respondent Shafi is not alleged to have either caused any of the injuries, nor he has been attributed any part of holding the deceased.
12. Admittedly, Maqbool has received simple injuries. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has considered that aspect of the case carefully, and the order of grant of bail does not require interference.
13. ' In the cases reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 1068 and 1977 P Cr. L J 129 and 150 the facts with their implication on the merits were different, which it is needless to discuss here.
14. ' At this stage, therefore, I find no adequate grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Shafi. However, if during the trial, any evidence implicating the respondent, comes on the record, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.