1. ' F. I. R. Has been lodged in this case by one Mumtaz.' Husain who is a member of People's Party.
2. According to him, he along with his comerades, was going along when a large number Of supporters of P. N. A. Armed with firearms and sharp-edged weapons fell upon the members of the Peoples Party. It appears that the members of the P. N. A. Were trying to wreak vengeance since on a previous occasion a worker of P. N. A. Had been allegedly injured by the supporters of the People's Party. Apart from this motive, there is another motive alleged that on a previous occasion, the members of the P. N. A. Who belong to Qasai baradri, were attacked by the members of the People's Party, and, therefore, the Qasai baradri was particularly provoked to wreak vengeance.
3. However, from the circumstances of the case it appears to be a case of political turmoil in which the rival parties wanted to render crude justice to one another which happens when people are incensed with wild passions negativing rationality and compassion. Therefore, the norms which are applicable for vicarious liability in ordinary case may be understood in a case of this nature in a different way.
2. In this case only two persons Abbas Ali and Qazi Javed received injuries (unfortunately both of them have died). Specifically the petitioners have neither been attributed Lalkaras nor it is alleged that they actually caused any injury to any of the deceased or injured person. The only overt act against the petitioners is that all of them came armed with weapons and opened the attack while raising slogans. Therefore, the petitioners come into the category of those who were raising slogans (2.Frz {{URDU TEXT}} If the intention of every member of the unlawful assembly was to commit an offence of murder, armed as they were with deadly weapons. There should have been a large number of injuries, and a large number of members of the other party would have been injured. So, in a case like this, where the contending antagonist groups are trying to wreak vengeance against one another, two manner of intentions can be discerned with regard to the respective members of the attacking group. One intention may be a general intention of causing rioting and the other, the specific intention, of committing an offence punishable with ten years R. I.
4. Or more. It is necessary to introduce this dichotomy in a case of this nature. Therefore, I hold that, prima facie, the petitioners can be attributed the intention of rioting only. They are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C., Chiniot.