' The allegation against the petitioners is that one of them (Muhammad Buta) was in unlawfull possession of a piece of land to which Abdul Ghafoor, complainant, was asserting legal claim. In pursuance thereof, on the day of occurrence i. e., 7th of June 1977, he, accompanied by other persons, brought Patwari Fateh Muhammad for the purposes of demarcation. Provoked by this audacity of the complainant, the petitioners who had allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and were variously armed, attacked the complainant party and in fact inflicted nine injuries on Manzoor (According to the F. I. R. a finger of his left hand was amputated). Petitioners 1 and 2 (armed with hatchet and Gandasa respectively) inflicted six sharp-edged weapon injuries on Manzoor, whereas Din Muhammad, Jan Muhammad and Ibrahim and others inflicted injuries with sofas. Nemat All tried to intervene and he was also injured by Jan Muhammad. It is also in the F. I. R. That, during the struggle, a member of the accused party, Muhammad Ramzan, was also injured. As already explained above, Manzur has suffered nine injuries, one of which is grievous. Nemat All suffered a simple blunt weapon injury on the head. On the side of the petitioners, Ramzan suffered one incised would x 3/4' muscle deep in the middle of the right leg, which was simple in nature, he pi prosecution story as told in the F. I. R. By Abdul Ghafoor complainant has been fully supported by Fateh Muhammad Patwari, (who claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence) in his statement under section 161, Cr, P. C. Recorded by the Investigating O.Cer.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the basis of the F. 1, R, the police has filed two challans, one challan is against the petitioners under section 326/324/148/149. P. P. C. And the other challan under section 324/148/149, P. P. C. Is against Abdul Ghafoor, Salamat Ali, Niamat Ali, Muhammad Sadie and Manzoor Ahmad. There are cross-cases and there are two versions of the incident and according to the averments of the petitioners, they were aggressed and in self- defence they inflicted injuries, and since the complainant party who are accused in the cross-case, have been granted bail, the petitioners are also entitled to bail; that there is 20 howl delay in the lodging of the F. I. R.' that the petitioners party was in possession and the complainant wanted to forcibly take over the poasession'.. That the complainant party had come in a menacing and unlawful way to take over the possession of the land and, therefore, the petitioners party had a right to resist the unlawful trespass; that whatever may be the right of the complainant party, they had no authority to eject the petitioners by resort to self-help, and that since Ramzan petitioner had a sharp-edged weapon injury, it shows . That the complainant party bad armed themselves with sharp-edged weapons.
4. Abdul Aziz, A. S. I. Of Police Station, Chuhang, has brought the record of the case and has read over to me the story in the challan as given against the complainant party. It is stated therein that Ramzan petitioner No. 4 reported the matter to the police that on the day of occurrence the complainant party, mentioned above, having armed themselves, came to take over the possession (forcibly) of the land in possession of the petitioners party and at this they started the fight by inflicting a hatchet blow on him (Ramzan). The police investigation found the complainant party guilty, and, therefore, presented a challan as mentioned above against them as well.
5. This is a case in which there are two versions of the incident. Since the complainant party has been granted bail, it is only fair that th present petitioners may also be released on bail. Learned counsel appearin for the complainant, Abdul Ghafoor, objects to the grant of bail on the ground that the case against Abdul Ghafoor etc. Is registered only under section 324, P. P. C. Which is bailable and that there is a great difference between number of injuries (the petitioner party suffered only one injury whereas the complainant party suffered ten injuries) and the injury of Ramzan petitioner has also been explained in the F. I. R. .
6. If as a result of an incident, various offences are committed, never theless, it does not affect on the character of a version. Suffering of large number of injuries does not always necessarily means that such a party was aggressed against. In the present, in F. I. R. Against the petitioners th words are that during the scuffle Ramzan was also injured. The above averment employs exercise of force by contendents. It appears that the clue was taken from this sentence in the F. I. R. To register a challan against the complainants as well. However, it is not a stage to determine the legal certainties. It is sufficient, at this stage, to opine, that it is a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioners as well. The petitioners are granted bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C., Lahore.
Ball granted.