' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 19-11- 2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 6290-B of 2001 whereby respondents Javed and Iqbal were granted bail after arrest.
2. The backgrounds of filing of this petition are that the petitioner Abdul Rehman lodged F.I.R. No, 104 dated 28-7-2001 under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Jandanwala, District Bhakkar, stating therein that on the night between 27/28-7-2001 at about 12-30 midnight, he alongwith his family members were sleeping in the courtyard of his house when all of a sudden, the respondents alongwith their co-accused came there. The respondents were armed with .32 bore pistol while the others were armed with different type of weapons. The respondents raised Lalkara that they had come to teach lesson to the complainant for not giving the share of land and thereafter they started firing at his Dera. The petitioner and his family members in order to save their lives, started running inside the house. Mst. Kanizan, his sister. Who had come as a guest also started running but she was fired at by the co-accused Umar Hayat from his .32 bore pistol which hit on her forehead and she laid down and succumbed to the injury. Thereafter, all of them decamped. The bail application of the respondents was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, whereas they were granted bail by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
3. Mirza Masood-ur-Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents were the main culprits as they attacked upon the house of the complainant with a motive to dispossess from the land. As such the bail already granted to them may be cancelled.
4. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the tile of the case in detail.
5. The role attributed to the respondents is that of raising of Lalkara and firing in the air without aiming at the complainant or anyone else. Thus their role has been perfectly held by the Lahore High Court to be that of further inquiry. Had the respondents any intention to kill the complainant or to dispossess him from the land, there was nobody to prevent them from doing so. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and .