1. ' The applicants seek bail in a case under section 324 and other section of P.P.C. And section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance (Crime No,52 of 2002 of Police Station Dubar), pending trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur, ' The relevent facts of the case are that complainant Nazeer Hussain Kandhro lodged F.I.R. On 4-7- 2002 naming some 20 persons as accused including the present four applicants their names appearing in the F.I.R. The accused named in the F.I.R. Are alleged to have injured eight persons of the complainant party. Likewise there is a counter-F.I.R. Bearing Crime No,51 of 2002 lodged by Ranjho one of the applicants in the connected Criminal Bail Application No,424 of 2002, about eight persons on their side also were injured. Out of whom one person namely Ali Khan succumbed to his injuries and died. In this case except the present four applicants all the remaining 16 accused are shown absconding.
2. ' It is contended by Mr. Junejo learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the applicants are entitled to bail as the injuries attributed to his clients are simple in nature described as Shajjah-i- Khafifah etc.; and are caused by Lathies except in case. Of Ali Muhammad who has been alleged to have used iron bar. It is also argued that there are counter-cases between the parties and it is yet to be determined as to which party was the aggressor.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Awan learned counsel appearing for the complainant argues that the report lodged by the complainant is prior in time. He further argues that during the, pendency of this application, Muhammad Ayub and Allah Dino of the complainant party, have been killed on 7- 9-2002 and 9-9-2002 and such F.I.Rs, of murders of the two of their members have been lodged at the Police Station Dubar.
4. ' Mr. Nidamuddin Brohi learned counsel appearing for the State has further opined that co-accused Edan of the applicants in present F.I.R. No,52 of 2002 after granting bail on 13-8-2002 by the trial Court has committed the murders of the complainant party.
5. ' It is being stated by learned counsel for both the parties that the parties have shifted from their village to an unknown place and most of their members have gone underground. Besides the learned State A Counsel also submits that the absconding accused in the given circumstances, are not likely to be arrested in near future and if the applicants are allowed bail, they shall also go away and join the team of the absconding accused.
6. ' The offences fall within the prohibitory clause appended to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. There is every likelihood of repetition of crime and in such a situation bail to accused may be refused. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am not inclined to grant the application which is hereby dismissed.