' Criminal case F.I.R. No,134, dated 2-4-1999 was registered at Police Station City, Toba Tek Singh for offence under section 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. On the report of Nazar Hussain. According to him, complainant and one Faqir Hussain a co-villager were at loggerheads for quite some time on account of enmity of murders. A fight took place between the parties on 1-4-1999 and two cases were registered against the parties at Police Station City, Toba Tek Singh which were under investigation. According to complainant at about 7-00 a.m. He along with Faqir Hussain and Hassan Din was proceeding to Sq. No,49 and when they reached in Killa No,23 of Sq. No,44 his son Sajjad Hussain was seen coming on cycle carrying milk. When he reached near Killa No,24, Bashir, Shamsher Ali, Zafar Ali, Sajid Ali and Asghar Ali armed with .12 bore shot guns who were lying in ambush in wheat crop, rose. Asghar Ali fired at Sajjad hitting him on left arm. Zafar Ali fired at Sajjad Hussain hitting him on knee of right leg. Shot fired by Shabbir hit on the back of knee of Sajjad Hussain. Sajid Ali also fired at ljaz Hussain but missed. Thereafter, Shamsher fired at Shamshad Ali at his back who fell down. According to complainant when he and his companions tried to move forward they were threatened at gun point due to which they returned. The complainant thereafter saw that the accused were dragging Sajjad Hussain towards Chak No,299.
The complainant came to village, raised alarm where after a large number of co-villagers went towards place of occurrence and found the dead body lying with bicycle in Killa No,1 of Sq. No,49.
2. Petitioners were arrested and have applied for grant of bail to them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they were involved in the case on account of enmity by assigning artificial roles to the petitioners. It was submitted that Sajid Hussain was ascribed ineffective firing only while Ghulam Shabbir is alleged to have fired at the deceased but injury attributed to him was exit wound according to .Postmortem examination report and the medical evidence, therefore, was in conflict with the narrative contained in the F.I.R. And case of the petitioners was that of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for State and the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the complainant contended that Shabbir was involved in a large number of cases and he had not only fired at the deceased but had also dragged the deceased for a considerable distance and both were duly connected with the commission of offence and did not deserve the concession of bail.
5. The enmity between the parties has been admitted by the complainant himself. According to him the petitioner along with their co-accused had fired at son of the complainant. However, the specific injury attributed to Shabbir turned out to be exit wound at the time of post-mortem examination. Allegation against Sajid Hussain was that of ineffective firing. Keeping in view the fact that bad blood existed between the parties for quite some time on account of enmity of murders, the possibility of throwing the net wider could not be ruled out and case of the petitioners under the circumstances is considered to be that of further inquiry.
6. The petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs, one lac each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh.