1. NASIM HASAN SHAH,J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order dated 26-11-1977 of the Lahore High Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4698/B of 1977, whereby bail was granted to the respondents in a case under sections 307/392/395/148 and 149, P. P. C.
2. According to the F. I. R. Lodged by Muhammad Shafi (petitioner herein) three days before the occurrence a herd of sheep belonging to Muhammad Sharif, a nephew of the petitioner, while grazing, strayed into the crop of Munshi Taili, whereupon Niaz, brother of Munshi Taili, gave fist blows to Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Sharif, and in retaliation, Muhammad Sharif smacked Niaz. The incident led to strained relations between the parties. On the day of occurrence, at 7 a.m. The petitioner along with his son Muhammad Yusuf, who was carrying a licensed gun of the petitioner, was returning home from his hotel, when Shabbo Faqir armed with hatchet and Liaqat, brother of Munshi Taili, empty-handed, approached the petitioner party and attempted to snatch the gun from the son of the petitioner, on the pretext that it was unlicensed. In the meantime, it is alleged, the other accused, namely, Muhammad Ali (unarmed). Makha, armed with a dang, Hakim Ali, armed with a double barrel gun, Munir (unarmed, Sharafat, armed with a dang and Nikka, armed with a gun, in furtherance of the common object came to assist the above- mentioned two accused. Munshi and Makha delivered stick blows to the petitioner and snatched away his gun. On an alarm being raised by the petitioner Muhammad Din (Lambardar), Ilyas, brother of the petitioner, Liaqat. Riaz 'and Arif, came to the rescue of the petitioner, Thereafter, it is alleged, various injuries with different weapons by the members of the accused party were caused to the petitioner's associates.
3. It appears that dome of the accused were also injured during the occurrence and they went to the Police Station to register a case, though sixteen days after the occurrence. However, since the S. H.
4. O. Refused to register a case, they filed a private complaint against the complainant party under sections 307, 148 and 149, P. P..C. Before the Ilaqa Magistrate.
5. The respondents, who were, by then, not arrested, applied for bail before arrest before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was refused. A bail application made by the respondents- accused after their arrest was also dismissed. The accused then made another application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, on the ground that since the. Challan against them was not put up in Court within the period prescribed by section 344, Cr. P. C., they were entitled to the concession of bail. They were released on bail, vide his order dated 25-10-1977, but the said bail order was, recalled in pursuance of an application - cancellation of bail moved by the complainant party, as, in the mean time ,an incomplete challan had been submitted.
6. The accused respondents then moved the Lahore High Court for grant of bail. The learned Judge in High Court was of the view that since the accused party had also filed complaint against the complainant party, it could not be said which side was the aggressor. Furthermore, the injuries used with fire-arms did not appear to be grievous because the medical report showed that the wounds were slightly bleeding. The learned Judge also found that the injuries on account of which Muhammad Din was admitted to Hospital were caused with blunt weapons. Observing that nothing definite could be said except that ii was a case of further inquiry, he admitted the accused respondents to bail. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
7. Before us, it was submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court was wrong in observing that it could not be said as to which party was the aggressor, inasmuch as six members of the complainant party have been seriously injured with fire-arms, dangs and hatchet; whereas only two of the accused respondents received minor injuries. Furthermore, the incident occurred in the fields of the complainant. It was further submitted that the private complaint, which was based only on two abrasions caused to the accused party, was filed sixteen days after the occurrence, just to create an excuse for raising the argument that the case was one of further inquiry. He also pointed out that the accused in the complaint case (complainant herein) have not been summoned. It was contended that since complete challan had beer, submitted, there is no scope for further inquiry.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We observe that members of both sides have received injuries, in that sir persons from the complainant side have been injured; whereas two accused (respondents herein) have received injuries. In addition, one Ali Muhammad' was also injured from the side of the accused, but he has not been mentioned as an accused in the F. I. R. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Judge of the High Court that it cannot be said with soy degree of certitude, at this stage, as to which side was the aggressor, and his finding that the case was one of further inquiry cannot be held to be perverse, arbitrary o capricious. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with his discretion.
9. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.