' Lal Khan complainant got recorded F.I.R. No,,19 on 6-1-1998 at Police Station Khathiala Sheikhan, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din under section 302/148/ 149/109, Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that on 6-1-1998 at 4-30 p.m. He was going back to his home from his Dera along with his son Muhammad Ashraf (deceased of this case), Zahoor Ahmad and Ahmad Yar. Near the graveyard they were surprised by Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners-accused each armed with gun as well as Safdar, Saif Ullah, Mukhtar, Aziz and Sohni each armed with rifles and one Shana empty-handed. Shana raised the Lalkara to teach a lesson to his son Muhammad Ashraf for committing the murder of Aurangzeb. Safdar, Mukhtar, Saif Ullah and Aziz fired with their respective weapons at his son who fell down. Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioner-accused as well as Sohni co-accused effected firing to keep the persons away from the place of occurrence. According to the complainant the occurrence took place at the instance of Lal Khan, Ahmad Khan and Inayat co-accused and that the conspiracy in the matter was heard by Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Javaid P.Ws. The cause of occurrence is that four years before ' Aurangzeb son of Shana was murdered in which Muhammad Ashraf deceased and others were the accused and that Muhammad Ashraf was released on bail in the recent past who was murdered thereof. The accused are said to have fled away from the place of occurrence.
2. Both Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf accused were arrested on 31-8-1998. No recovery has been effected from them. Prior to their arrest they were declared as innocent twice in different inquiries. Their bail plea has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha- ud-Din on 16-10-1998 who have filed this petition before this Court with the same desire.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The contentions of the learned counsel for Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners are that no overt act has been ascribed to the petitioners who are alleged to have made ineffective firing, that they were declared innocent twice in the previous investigation and that no recovery has been got effected from them of any weapon of offence. On the contrary learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the complainant laid the emphasis that the petitioners accompanied while. Armed with weapons and their co-accused injured Muhammad Ashraf deceased who expired and, thus, acted in the matter in prosecution of their common object. They laid the emphasis that the police wrongfully declared the petitioners as innocent while they were not arrested. They maintained that it is not a case for the admission of the petitioners to bail who were recently arrested on 31-8-1998.
4. At this stage I hold that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioners has to prevail. They did not injure the deceased or any prosecution witness. The number of their co- accused who actively took part in the occurrence by effecting the firing on Muhammad Ashraf deceased has made me to hold that the involvement of the petitioners-accused is a question of further inquiry especially when during these days there is trend of involvement of large number of accused about the murder of one person. It is the admitted position that both Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners-accused did not injure Muhammad Ashraf deceased son of Lal Khan complainant and any prosecution witness. They were arrested. However, no weapon. Of offence has been recovered at their instance. In the light of the aforesaid reasoning the contentions of the learned counsel for the State with respect to the dismissal of this petition have no legal force. I, therefore, hold that Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners are entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. For what has been said above, I accept this petition and admit Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ashraf petitioners-accused to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned trial Court may cancel the bail of the absentee accused person(s).