' The petition has been submitted for cancellation of to the respondents by order, dated 3-7-1996 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin in case F.I.R. No,135, dated 1-6-1996 under sections 337-A (i)(ii), 337-F(i), 147 and 148, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the respondents and three others is to the effect that they attacked and injured Maqsood Ahmad while he was proceeding to wagon stand. The allegation against Atta Muhammad is that he raised a Lalkara and held guard by carrying a gun while the other accused attacked Maqsood Ahmad. The allegation against Riaz Ahmed is that he gave a blow with hockey stick to Maqsood Ahmad hitting him on his right eye. The allegation against Imtiaz Ahmad is that he gave a Sota blow to Maqsood Ahmad hitting him on lip.
3. The respondents applied for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by observing that Imtiaz Ahmed had been found innocent during the investigation and Riaz Ahmad was a lame person while Atta Muhammad was aged 71 years and was also suffering from cataract and that both were unable to take part in the incident, allowed them concession of bail.
4. The present application has been submitted for cancellation of to respondents by the order, dated 3-7-1996 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considerations for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest were not available to the respondents and jurisdiction was exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously. It was submitted that there was no material which showed that Riaz Ahmad was a lame person or Atta Muhammad was suffering from catract and observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they were unable to take part in the incident, were contrary to record or were presumptive. It was further contended that the respondents had actively participated in the occurrence and they were guilty of non-bailable offence and hence did not deserve concession extended to them by the learned lower Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard in the matter. Atta Muhammad was found to be 71 years old and statingly was having cataract in his eyes while Riaz Ahmad, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was a lame person. Since the accused were present before the learned lower Court, he was quite capable of taking notice of the physical condition of the accused. Old-age or infirmity are physical phenomena and can be perceived by seeing and no documentary evidence was required to hold a lame person to be a lame person or an old person to be an old person. The observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard do not suffer from any infirmity. Even otherwise the role attributed to the respondents would have made their case that of grant of bail. The complainant had chosen as many as six persons to be involved in a case in which only four injuries were received by the injured P.W. The bail in anticipation of arrest was allowed to the respondents rightly.
' The application is without merit and is rejected.
Bail upheld.