' Petitioners along with ten others are accused of an offence under section 302/148/149, P. P. C.
2. According to the F. I. R. Dated the 16th of September 1975, registered at Police Station Arifwala, District Sahiwal, on the fateful day at about 10-30 a.m. All the accused variously armed attacked Fateh Muhammad who died at the spot due to the injuries suffered at the hands of the accused.
Another lady Mst. Umran is also alleged to have been killed by the accused. The motive as stated in the F. I. R. Is that Mst. Umran was having illegitimacy with Fateh Muhammad deceased on that account petitioners attacked and murdered them.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that Aish petitioner who is a student was armed with a sofa, and he is stated to have given a blow to the deceased causing him a simple injury, Said petitioner also gave a hatchet blow from the wrong side on the neck of the deceased which is also simple in nature, Nawab petitioner who was holding a pistol is also said to have fired the same and it is not clear whether the shot fired by him injured any body or not, Waryam accused, husband of Mst.
Umran deceased who is alleged to have fired his '12-bore gun and injured Fateh Muhammad deceased on the left flank of his chest, was shown in column No, 2 of the challan and on that basis he was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Similarly Goman, Faqir, Waryam, Anayat, Muhammad Siddiq and Bagh Ali are also on bail.
4. From the facts as discussed above, Aish and Said petitioners are alleged to have caused simple injuries. At the same time there is nothing on the record to suggest that the shot fired by Nawab petitioner also hit any person on the complainant side. In view of the motive, as stated in this F. I. R., it is still to be seen as to whether the instant case falls within the ambit of section 302, P. P. C. Or not.
5. There is yet another asp:ct of the case. First information report In the present case was registeredion the 16th of September 1975, and the final report under section 173, Cr. P. C. Was submitted somewhere in June 1976. Petitioners are in judicial lock-up for more than two years and the commencement of the trial is still not in sight. In the circumstances, petitioners can also legitimately claim the benefit of the dictum laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Riosat Ali v. State (1).
6. Without entering into the merits of the case at this stage, I am of the view that the case of the petitioners falls under section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. And requires further enquiry. They are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with twosureties each in the amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commis-sioner, Sahiwal.
(1)PLD 1977 SC 374