1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-By this petition leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 10-4-1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing bail to the respondents before us. .
2. The respondents before us are involved in a case under sections 302, 148, 324 and 149, P. P. C.
3. According to the F. I. R., in the first instance, Shera respondent who was armed with a hatchet, is alleged to have given a blow to Ahmad complainant (petitioner before us). Thereafter, all the remaining respondents, out of whom Sberu and Hamid were armed with hatchets, Dalla with Takwa and the rest with longs, belaboured the complainant and his father Hatam deceased. The circumstances leading to this incident were that the cattle of Sheru, Masud and Mahman respondents had strayed into the crop of Hatam deceased. Exception to this was taken by the petitioner and his deceased father, whereupon the respondents got infuriated and assaulted the petitioner and his father m the manner, stated above.
4. The accused (respondents herein) moved the Sessions Judge for bail. But since their application was not disposed of by Add]. Sessions Judge for a considerable period, the same was withdrawn and the High Court approached directly in this connection.
5. The learned Judge in the High Court observed that the injuries suffered by the accused were simple in nature. Hatam deceased, no doubt, had one grievous injury out of four injuries suffered by him, but all of them too were caused by a blunt weapon. In fact, Hatam did not succumb to the injuries immediately and initially the case was registered under sections 148 and 324/149, P. P. C. His condition appears to have worsened later on and he eventually expired on 1.7-1978, whereupon the offence under section 302, P. P. C. Was added. Furthermore, in the F. I. R. The injuries on the deceased had not been attributed specifically to any of the petitioners and some of the respondents were omitted in the dying declaration. Moreover, three of the respondents herein had also sustained injuries about which there was no mention in the F. I. R. In view of all these circumstances it was found that there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. He accordingly admitted them to bail during the pendency of the trial. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. It is submitted before us that all the respondents are named in the F. I. R. And they have caused injuries to the deceased. Therefore, the High Court, in allowing them bail, failed to exercise its discretion properly.
7. We regret that we cannot agree. The learned Judge in the High Court has given reasons in support of his decision to allow bail, which are neither whimsical, arbitrary nor capricious. We may further observe that four, persons from the side of the accused (respondents herein) have also been injured and the allegation is that they sustained injuries in the same transaction, which tends to support the view of the learned Judge in the High Court that this is a case of further inquiry.
8. No ground for interference, therefore, exists this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.