' This order would dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3645-B/77, filed by Inayat and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3646-B/77, filed by Bashir, Rahmat and Barkat. All the petitioners are accused of the same case.
2. Inayat petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3345-B/76, which was disposed of by this Court, on 20-9-1976. It was held in the previous order that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It was also noted in the previous order that although no injury had been attributed to Inayat petitioner in the F. I. R. In the statement of the eye-witnesses it was clearly mentioned that he had caused injuries to the deceased and Dullah P. W.
3. The present case was registered on 14-12-1975, at Police Station Khudian, on the statement of Khushi. Mst. Guddi a daughter of Bashir petitioner had illicit relations with one Bashi; Pathan. Bashir petitioner came to know of it. He suspected that Master Bashir had good relations with Khushi complainant and was on visiting terms. Bashir petitioner and others bore grudge against Khushi on that account. The petitioner had quarrelled with him but the matter was got compromised by the respectables. In spite of compromise, the petitioner bore grudge against Khushi.
4. On 14-12-1975, at about 1 p.m. Khushi was returning to his house after making purchases. When he reached near the shop of Dr. Qudrat Ullah, Inayat petitioner gave him a push which led to an altercation. Inayat petitioner called out the other petitioners who came out of their hiding places and reached the spot armed with sticks. Khushi complainant raised noise, which attracted Siraj deceased (father of complainant), Dulla, Hakam and Bashir P. Ws. In the meantime, Wassan and Makhan co-accused also came there. Bashir petitioner inflicted first stick blow to Siraj deceased on the head who fell down. Rahmat and Barkat petitioners inflicted him more blows. The deceased snatched stick from Rahmat petitioner and caused injuries to Barkat petitioner. Dulla also fell unconscious on receiving the injuries.
' The case was originally registered under sections 147, 307 and 325, P. P. C. After the death of Siraj, the offence under section 302, P. P. C. Was added.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the F. I. R. Inayat petitioner was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or Dulla P. W., that many shops were situated close to the spot of occurrence but none from those shops came forward to support the prosecution version ; that the prosecution story was highly improbable ; that the spot of occurrence was in front of the house of the petitioner ; that the complainant party was aggressor ; that eye-witnesses, namely, Bashir and Hakam had sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not witnessed the occurrence.
6. The argument that no part had been assigned to the petitioner in the F. I. R. Was taken note of in the previous order passed by this Court, on 20-9-1976, and the bail petition filed by Inayat. The statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. Were perused. The eye- witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. Had assigned role to Inayat petitioner by stating that he had caused injuries to the deceased and Dulla P. W. Inayat petitioner was the first person who gave push to Khushi P. W. And it led to an altercation. He had shouted to the other accused who reached the spot armed with sticks. Bashir, Rahmat and Barkat petitioners had inflicted stick injuries to the deceased. Dulla P. W. Was also caused injuries. Injuries of Barkat petitioner had been explained away in the F. I. R. The deceased after snatching stick from Rahmat petitioner had caused injuries to Barkat petitioner. This he did so after he was attacked and caused injuries by the petitioners. No cross-case had been registered against the complainant party. The plea of the petitioners that the complainant party was aggressor cannot be decided at this stage of the case and it will be the function of the trial Court to give a verdict about this plea. Even if the statements of Hakam and Bashir P. Ws. Are ignored, the prosecution is in possession of the other ocular evidence furnished by Khushi and Dullah P. Ws. As mentioned above, Dullah is an injured witness and his presence cannot be disputed. The petitioners are involved in a case which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. It is not a fit case for bail. Both the petitions are dismissed.