' From the F. I. R. It appears that the accused party (Salabat and eight others) were aggrieved by the allotment of some land in favour of the complainant party and had also lost or in litigation regarding it.
' At Degarwela, on I 1 the of July, 1976, the complainant, along with his uncle, was interrupted by Nura accused and there was a mild altercation and the accused returned to village having threatened to take revenge. The complainant arrived in the village where the front of the house of one Akbar, Salabat, Waryam, Ghulam, and Husain accused (not petitioners) armed with guns, Nazir, Sadiq (petitioners), and Nur armed with sofas, Sanatta and Muhammad Akbar (petitioners) armed with hatchets, came to the place of occurrence raising lalkaras and with a preconcert.
Salabat fired hitting Jafar, deceased ; Husain fired and injured Altaf P. W. ; Waryam fired which hit Asghar P. W. ; Ghulam fired and hit Khalid Mahmood complainant. Thereafter, all the remaining accused persons injured Sukha, Amir and Khalid Mahmood complainant with hatchets and sofas.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel : (a) that the petitioners 1 and 2 were carrying hatchets but none received sharp-edged weapon injury t' (b) that though Ghulam was ascribed a specific role, but he has been placed in column No, 2 ; that the investigation result about Ghulam casts doubt! Upon the entire prosecution story ; (c) that specifically no injury was caused A by the petitioners to the deceased ; (d) that Sanatta is an old man of 75 years1 and Akbar petitioner is a school teacher while Sadiq is a student ; (e) that the complainant has unnecessary involved the innocents with the guilty ;.And since it is a case of further inquiry, therefore, under section 497(2), Cr.
P. CJ the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail.
3. None of the above grounds are sufficient for the grant of bail. It is not a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed.