1. ' This application for bail was disposed of by a short order passed on 21-5-1995 for the reasons to be recorded. These are the reasons for the same. The applicants are Raja Muhammad Niaz Khan and his three sons namely, Jamil Ahmed, Saleem Ahmed and Shakeel Ahmed. The allegations against them are that on 13-1-1995 there arose a quarrel on taking water between the applicant and one Aslam. This quarrel was settled when complainant Muhammad Farid and his cousin Abdul Waris intervened. After a shortwhile applicant Raja Niaz and his son Shakeel armed with pistols and Saleem and Jamil armed with knives again came to the place of incident and there was a fight between the applicants and the complainant party on the other side. Applicant Raja Muhammad Niaz and Shakeel are said to have fired from pistols and as a result of the firing made by the applicants Shakeel Ahmed, Abdul Waris was killed whereas the applicants Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed received injuries on their person with blunt weapons. Aijaz and Muhammad Siddiq from the side of the complainant party were also injured Raja Muhammad Niaz was the first person to go to the police station along with his sons Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed and his report was entered in the Roznamcha at 8-30 a.m. On 13-1-1995 complainant Muhammad Farid also reached the police station at about 11-00 a.m. And his report was also recorded. These are two counter- versions of the same incident. Applicant Shakeel Ahmed is assigned the role of having fired the fatal shot on the person of deceased Abdul Waris. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, at the very outset did not press the bail application of Shakeel Ahmed. Therefore, the request of applicant Shakeel for grant of bail is dismissed as not pressed. There remain three applicants in the field with the request for grant of bail. Applicant Raja Muhammad Niaz is alleged to be having a pistol at the time of incident and the allegations are that he had fired from his pistol. The allegations against Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed are that both of them had caused blows with knives on the persons of P.Ws. Aijaz and Muhammad Siddiq. The applicants Saleem Ahmed and Jamil Ahmed were also injured in the incident and the medical report shows that there are blunt weapon injuries on their persons. The complainant party in this case have been granted bail by the Magistrate on the ground that the injuries on the person of accused Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed, which were attributed to them were not serious. There are two versions of the same incident and it cannot be said at this stage as to which of the parties is the aggressor and, therefore, culpability of each of the accused may be judged from the allegations borne out from the F.I.R. And the statements recorded by the police as they stand. Medical report in respect of the injuries on the person of Aijaz and Muhammad Siddiq shows that they have received injuries with some hard and blunt weapons, as such these allegations are in contradiction to the allegations in the F.I.R. Against the present applicants, who were armed with knives. Therefore, considering that there are counter-versions and that there is conflict in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence as regards the injuries caused by the applicants Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed, I find that applicants Jamil Ahmed and Saleem Ahmed are presently entitled to be released on bail.
2. Consequently, their application for bail is allowed and they are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs, one lac each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. As regards the request for bail of applicant Raja Muhammad Niaz he is alleged to have fired with his pistol and he has also gone to the police ' station admitting his presence at the time of incident. Therefore, for the time being his request for bail does not find favour with me and, therefore, his request for bail is refused. However, it is left open to him to move application for bail before the trial Judge after recording of the evidence of some witnesses before the trial Court. He is allowed to repeat his request for bail in the trial Court after a period of 3 months, which may be considered on merits by the trial Judge. The observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and for the decision of this bail application and should not influence the mind of the trial Court. The trial Judge is directed to see that the trial in these counter-cases is not delayed.