' Due to the dispute of previous litigation with respect to the landed property Muhammad Bashir and Nusrat Ali alias Salli petitioners-accused each armed with hatchet, Rubnawaz and Yasin each armed with Sota alongwith Zulfiqar, Riaz and Fida Hussain each armed with Sota are said to have formed an unlawful assembly, rioted and in the prosecution of common object trespassed the cattle shed of Muhammad Akbar complainant who injured Muhammad Akbar, Mst. Sabban, Ahmad Bakhsh and Shauq Muhammad who received respectively, 6, 1, 4 and 9 injuries on 18-11- 1998 at about 7-00 a.m. F.I.R. No,398, dated 18-11-1998 was registered at Police Station Chhab Kalan, District Khanewal under sections 337-F(i)(iv), 337-A(ii), 148 and 149, Pakistan Penal Code to which the police has added sections 324, 337-F(v)(vi)/337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code. The occurrence was seen by the injured witnesses. Both Muhammad Bashir Ahmad and Nusrat Ali alias Salli petitioners- accused were arrested on 4-12-1998. Rab Nawaz and Yaseen petitioners-accused Were arrested on 6-12-1998. The bail application of the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned lower Courts who have filed this petition before this Court for their admission to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused who canvassed that the attraction of section 324, Pakistan Penal Code is a question of further inquiry because the sharp side of the hatchet was not used by Muhammad Bashir Ahmad and Nusrat Ali alias Salli petitioners-accused even though they were armed with hatchets. With respect to the remaining sections it can safely be expressed that the same do not fall within the prohibitory clause. A bail application has to be disposed of within the framework of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considerable time has elapsed in between the arrest of these petitioners and the date of this order. It is the admitted position that the charge has not been framed against the petitioners as yet. The contention of the learned State Counsel that the petitioners took the law in their hands and for that matter they are not entitled to the concession of bail has failed to impress me in view of the reasons adopted supra. In the circumstances of the matter I would express that it is a case for the admission of the aforesaid four petitioners-accused to bail than their retention in jail.
3. For what has been said above, I accept this petition and admit the aforesaid four petitioners- accused to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court who shall appear there on every date of hearing failing which the learned trial Court may cancel the bail of the absentee accused person(s).