' The petitioners are accused of the commission of offence under section 302/ 148/149, P.P.C. As reflected in F.I.R. No,266 of 1998, dated 29-8-1998 lodged with Police Station Fateh Shah District Vehari. It is alleged that on the fateful day the complainant was present at his house along with Faqir Muhammad and Ghulam Farid and was attracted to the spot on account of the noise and witnessed the petitioner Zawar armed with iron pipe, Muhammad Iqbal armed with Bahi, Mustafa armed with Sota, Allah Yar armed with Sota and Qadir Bakhsh empty handed while raising Lalkaras rushed towards the shop of Allah Ditta, where Allah Ditta and Muhammad Amin were already present there, Within the sight of the complainant and the eye-witnesses, Mustafa caused a Sota blow on the left side of Allah Ditta followed by a Bahi blow by Iqbal hitting on the head of Allah Ditta.
Allah Yar petitioner caused Sota blows on the head of Muhammad Amin successively. Where after, petitioner Zawar inflicted a blow with iron pipe on the head of Muhammad Amin, whereupon, Muhammad Amin also fell on the ground. Haq Nawaz and Bhutto kept on raising Lalkaras that whosoever came near would also meet the same fate. The complainant and others became scared. The hue and cry attracted many people at the spot, and on their sight the assailants decamped from the scene of occurrence with their respective weapons.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely involved due to party faction and a wide net has been thrown to involve maximum number of persons from the accused side. That both the petitioners did not cause even a scratch to the deceased. That petitioner Allah Yar is tin old and infirm person and no overt act has been attributed to him qua the deceased. That the co-accused namely Bhutto and Haq Nawaz were discharged in course of the investigation. That question of vicarious liability has to be determined and ascertained at the trial after recording of evidence. That according to the doctor's report injuries ascribed to both the petitioners fall within ambit of section 337-A(i) and A-(ii), P.P.C.
3. The learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and State at length and perused the relevant record produced by the Sub-Inspector before me.
5. Considering the contentions of both the learned counsel and the affidavit of the injured Muhammad Amin exonerating the petitioners and taking into account the age of petitioner Allah Yar, case of the petitioner becomes one of further enquiry. They are behind the bars since 1998 and no progress towards the trial has been taken place. In this view of the matter, I direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, fifty thousand each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.