' Shera, Lal sons of Muradi, Sultan Ali son of Dadoo, Manzoor son of Mina, Noora, Muhammad, Sadra sons of Hadoo, Fatta son of Lala petitioners alongwith Mohammad, Ghulam Hussain, Hayat, Gulla sons of Mirza, Bakhsha son of Hadoo, Sultan Ali son of Munir, Natoo and Fatta sons of Raja are accused of the murder of Sardara and for having murderously assaulted Maula Bakhsh, Sultan Ali and Muhammad with spears and dangs. The case was registered against them on 13-6-76 at Police Station, Bhalwal, District Sargodha at the instance of Dossa brother of the deceased.
2. It is alleged that the occurrence in this case took place out of a previous incident, in which Muhammad son of Mirza (accused in this case) was beaten up about six months before the occurrence in this case by Dossa (informant) and six others including Sardara (deceased) and they were being prosecuted. It is further alleged that to avenge the beating the petitioners and the eight other accused attacked Sardara (deceased), Maula Bakhsh, Sultan and Muhammad who were cutting fodders in their own field. Muhammad and Fatta petitioners were armed with spears while the remaining six petitioners were armed with sticks. Out of their other companions, Muhammad, Ghulam Hussain, Hayat, Bakhsha were also armed with spears while Gulla, Natoo, Fatta and Sultan Ali were armed with sticks. The later set of eight accused have been attributed injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons while the petitioners were said to have attacked the witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Bakhsha and Muhammad accused were injured. Bakhsha had two sharp-edged weapon injuries and two of his injuries were grievous but there is no explanation of their injuries in the F. I. R. He next contended that since the complainant party bore a grudge against the accused for their prosecution, therefore, they attached Bakhsha and Muhammad who acted in self defence. It was also argued that even if it turned out to be a case of a free fight each accused would then be liable for his own act. It was futher argued that large number of persons have been roped in by the complainant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that in fact the accused were the aggressors because the occurrence took place in the field of the complainant party and since each accused was armed with a deadly weapon and had come prepared to attack the complainant party, therefore, each one of them was equally liable. He further argued that in the supplementary statement, Dossa (informant) explained the injuries of the accused. Those, according to him, were caused in their self-defence.
4. 1 have considered the matter. Whether this is a case of self-defence or of a free fight and whether there is false implication of some of the accused are matters which turn on evidence and at this stage it is not proper to go deeper into these questions. However, the fact remains that there is n explanation of the injuries of two of the accused in the F. I. R. Though late during investigation explanation was offered. Further I find that th petitioners did not attack the deceased and were attributed injuries to the witnesses. There are injuries on both sides. Moreover, the dairas of the parties are close to the place of occurrence. Under these circumstances, I allow bail to the petitioners in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (ten thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, BhalwaL