' A case under section 307/10/149, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station. Parianwali, District Gujrat, at the instance of Muhammad Afsal regarding an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 21-7.1975 at about I rem. Within the Bela of Chenab River.
' According to the prosecution ten accused persons armed with lethal and blunt weapons took the complainant party by surprise and attacked them, as a result of which eight persons were injured, out of them seven had injuries caused by fire-arms.
' The motive of the alleged occurrence was previous criminal litigation beta seen the parties.
2. All the accused moved for bail after arrest before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, but their request was turned down by order dated 3rd November 1975. Thereafter they filed this petition and prayed for bail pending the decision of the case against them.
3. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there had been delay in lodging the first information report, because the alleged incident took place on 21-7-1975 at 1-00 p.m., statement of the complainant was recorded at 6-30 p m. And the first information report was registered at 7.00 p.m., although the Police Station was at distance of only about four mile:. This delay, according to the learned counsel, was on account of the fact that the prosecution wanted time to think over as to how many persons were to be implicated in the alleged incident, it was as a result of Us that the complainant indiscriminately involved all the accused who belong to one family and are inter-related.
' The neat point raised by the learned counsel was that no reliance could be placed on the first information report, because it was not trustworthy, the reason being that it was impossible to give such a precise description of attack as had been given in the first information report and its accuracy was suggestive of the fact that it was the result of collusion with the police. It was then submitted that the challan in the instant case was submitted after five months. This delay, according to the learned counsel, entitled the petitioners, irrespective of other point, to the concession of bail. Reliance in this connection was placed PLJ 1947 Lah.29((sic) wad P L 4 1915 Lab.
169.
' Last of all, it was argued that only one person received a grievous injury and, therefore, it was not a case where section 307, P. P. C. Was attracted.
4. Learned counsel for the State expressed his inability to render any assistance, his difficulty being that he ban not been given any paper by the office of the Advocate-General. He; however, opposed the grant of bail.
5. Mr. Riasat Ali appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the question of delay and other incidental matters would be dealt with by the trial Court at the proper time and at this stage these points are of no importance because there is prima facie evidence to connect the accused with the alleged incident. It was further submitted that the total number of injuries received by the victims were 29 out of which 15 were the result of fire-arms and the remaining by blunt weapon. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that fire- arms had actually been used stands proved from the nature and number of injuries and the recovery of 100 pellets from the body of Nasrullah. The mere fact that one injury was found to be grievous is of no consequence nor could that rule out the applicability of section 307, P. P. C.
6. The main emphasis from the side of the learned counsel for the petitioners was on the filing of a delayed challan. For that matter I heard the learned counsel at full length and have also gone through the two cases referred to above. In PLJ 1974 Lab. 296 (sic) admittedly the prosecution was at fault for delay and the number of accused was five and one person was shot dead. The other was the case of cancellation of bail of the accused, in that case there were other factors in favour of the accused, thin the submission of a delayed challan because it was observed by the learned Judge that the case of the accused fell within the provision of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C.
In this case, there are certain distinguishing features and those are, the number of accused, number of injured persons and the type of evidence the prosecution had to collect before filing the challan. The Investigating Officer who is present submitted that it was on account of the aforesaid reasons that he could not complete the challan within the stipulated time. He further submitted that it took some time to apprehend all the accuse persons and that the delay was not due to any negligence. He further submitted that the challan has now been filed and the trial is likely to commence in the near future.
7. There is no dispute with the principle enunciated by the learned Judge with reference to sections 167 and 344, Cr. P. C., nevertheless, I am of the view that there is no bar for this Court to itself look into the circumstances for filing the delayed challan and for that matter, I have taken into consideration the submissions made by the Investigating Officer. In my view the accused in this case are not entitled to claim the concession of bail merely on the ground of delay.
' With regard to the other points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners I think it will not be proper to give any finding thereon at this stage, lest it should prejudice the case of either party.
These factors can be considered by the trial Court at the proper stage. I am, therefore, of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. It will, however, be open to the accused to apply for bail after some material evidence has been recorded by the trial Court. The learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.