' One Nawab son of Shah Muhammad on 17-7-1999, at 5-30 p.m. Reported at Police Station City Mailsi District Vehari that the petitioners alongwith three others armed with various weapons detailed in the F.I.R. Waylaid the said complainant and 6 others in front of the house of the petitioner No,1, that petitioner No,5 administered a hatchet blow which hit the head of Ghulam Nabi; that petitioner No,4 hit the head of Muhammad Qurban with a stick; that petitioner No,1 had been firing with a gun issuing threats of death; that petitioner No,2 hit the head of Sakhi Muhammad with a stick; that petitioner No,3 also administered a stick blow to the head of Zulfiqar Ali and so did Muhammad Iqbal. According to the complainant this happened at 12-00 noon. The case was accdrdingly registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-H(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. Vide an F.I.R. No,396 of 1999.
' The petitioners and the other accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R. In the first instance applied for post-arrest bail, whereas the others were granted the said concession, it was refused to the petitioners who were arrested on 21-9-1999. A bail application was filed before a Magistrate who dismissed the same on 4-10-1999. The petition was repeated and was heard by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi who dismissed the same on 27-10-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the contents of the F.I.R. Are patently false.
Learned counsel vehemently argues that it was the complainant party which in fact committed aggression and it was during the course of the resultant scuffle that the complainant party suffered injuries; according to the learned counsel it is a matter of record that the petitioners 2 and 3 suffered injuries while one Riasat Ali also received injuries. These injuries were absolutely unexplained rather suppressed in the F.I.R. However, the presence of such injuries led to the recording of cross-version though the statement of Imdad Ali petitioner who stated that in fact, the complainant party attacked him and his companions while they were present in his house. Further submits that all the injuries on the person of the P.Ws. Are simple except injury No,2 to Ghulam Nabi P.W. Which is a fracture of fifth metacarpal bone of the right hand which is punishable with five years. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposes the grant of bail.
3. I have gone through the records brought by the Police Officer who states that investigation is yet not over and an incomplete challan has been put up before the Court.
4. The manner and place where the occurrence is stated to have taken place does prima facie lend support to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it cannot be completely ruled out that the scuffle has resulted between the two parties because of conduct attributable to the complainant party who did go to the house of petitioner No,1 in an aggressive mood. The contents of the medico-legal report also do not make it a case falling within the prohibitory degree. The learned State Counsel also does not have any explanation for the injuries on the persons of the members of the accused party and suppression of the said fact in the F.I.R.
The petitioners are incarcerated since last more than 3 months. To my mind, this is a case of further inquiry. Consequently, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.